Legal Opinion
State v. Norris-Romine
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided May 3, 1995No. 9422M; CA A83772 (Control); Q9400667M, Z9400670M; CA A83931PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRiggs, P. J.
In these consolidated cases, the state appeals from the dismissal of accusatory instruments charging defendants Finley and Norris-Romine with violations of stalking protective orders, ORS 163.747 and ORS 163.750. In each case, the ground for dismissal was that the statutory definition of the phrase “without legitimate purpose,” as a component of the crime of stalking, is unconstitutionally vague. We affirm.
Defendants were charged wdth violating stalking protective orders. A protective order may be issued either by a law enforcement officer or the court, upon the request of any person. ORS…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. GravesOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- State v. CornellOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- City of Eugene v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Galloway v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- State v. RuckerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1999
- United States v. SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- State v. PorelleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2003
- Delgado v. SoudersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.