Legal Opinion

State v. Franzone

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1966PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLusk, J.

The defendant was indicted for violation of ORS 161.310, generally known as the nuisance statute. ①

Defendant demurred to the indictment on various grounds and the demurrer was overruled. The parties thereafter entered into a so-called stipulation of facts, which, however, consists only of a repetition of the allegations of the indictment. Trial was had on such stipulation before the court without a jury and the court entered a judgment of conviction from which the defendant appeals.

The indictment alleges:

“FRANK FRANZONE is accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Multnomah and State of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ashton v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. State of Oregon v. DeweyOregon Supreme Court · 1956
  3. State v. NeaseOregon Supreme Court · 1905
  4. State v. WaymireOregon Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Price v. StipekMontana Supreme Court · 1909

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. HafnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State v. HouseOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Pyle v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  4. Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Fleetwood v. RhayCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1972
  5. Buffalo v. BuffaloNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API