State v. Woodcock
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
| Citation | 300 Or. 506,713 P.2d 1059 |
| Parties | State v. Woodcock (William C.) NOS. A34352, S32325 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1986 |
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 practice notes
-
State v. Maynard,
...569." Id. at 215, 653 P.2d 553. We reaffirmed the reasoning of Frink in State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev. den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 (1986). There, the defendant sold lapel buttons to minors containing slogans that were obscene. Once more, the state relied o......
-
State v. Maynard
...the harm that could occur in the language of the statute. In State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 662, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev. den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 (1986), and in State v. Frink, 60 Or.App. 209, 212, 653 P.2d 553 (1982), we specifically noted that the dissemination of obscene ma......
-
State v. Henry
...narrowly drawn statute. See State v. Robertson, supra; State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev.den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 Finally, defendant contends that ORS 167.087 is unconstitutional, because Article I, section 8, flatly bans the enactment of legislation direct......
3 cases
-
State v. Henry
...narrowly drawn statute. See State v. Robertson, supra; State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev.den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 Finally, defendant contends that ORS 167.087 is unconstitutional, because Article I, section 8, flatly bans the enactment of legislation direct......
-
State v. Maynard
...the harm that could occur in the language of the statute. In State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 662, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev. den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 (1986), and in State v. Frink, 60 Or.App. 209, 212, 653 P.2d 553 (1982), we specifically noted that the dissemination of obscene ma......
-
State v. Maynard
...569." Id. at 215, 653 P.2d 553. We reaffirmed the reasoning of Frink in State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev. den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 (1986). There, the defendant sold lapel buttons to minors containing slogans that were obscene. Once more, the state relied o......