Legal Opinion

State v. Layne

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 19, 1966PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals a conviction of violating ORS 474.020 (possession of marijuana). There are two assignments of error, both without merit.

The first challenges the constitutionality of the relevant sections of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act on the ground that the statute delegates to the State Board of Pharmacy the duty to define narcotic drugs. The point was not raised in the trial court, and is not, therefore, properly before us on appeal.

We disregard the assignment for the further reason that courts do not decide the constitutionality of statutes upon hypothetical cases. It will be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. WaltonOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  2. State v. DaleyOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  3. State v. ReedOregon Supreme Court · 1908
  4. State v. Wong Si SamOregon Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Portland v. Trumbull Asphalt CompanyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970
  2. State v. VarneyOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  3. RIVER ROAD WATER DISTRICT v. City of EugeneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1972
  4. State v. KralCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API