Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. Henry
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided April 9, 1986No. 31300, 31301; CA A26439Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVan Hoomissen, J.
The majority concedes that ORS 167.087 passes muster under the United States Supreme Court’s current view of the First Amendment.1
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion that concludes that ORS 167.087 is unconstitutionally vague under Article I, sections 20 and 21, of the Oregon Constitution.
Assuming that the vagueness issue has been raised,2 the question, as I see it, is whether the standard established in Miller v. California, 413 US 15, 93 S Ct 2607, 37 L Ed 2d 419, reh den, 414 US 881 (1973), and its progeny, which is incorporated in ORS 167.087, satisfies the…
2Cases cited97 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.