Legal Opinion
City of Salem v. Lawrow
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided December 30, 2009No. 07C40103; A136955PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.
Defendant was convicted in Salem Municipal Court of two counts of prohibited touching. Salem Revised Code (SRC) 96.300(a). She appealed to Marion County Circuit Court for trial de novo, as authorized by ORS 221.359 and ORS 221.360, and moved to dismiss the charges on the ground (among others) that the code provision violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, the state’s free expression guarantee. The court agreed and dismissed the charges. The city appeals. We affirm.
SRC 96.300 provides:
“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to pay a fee, or to receive a fee, directly or…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. PlowmanOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. CiancanelliOregon Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. Illig-RennOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- City of Nyssa v. DuflothOregon Supreme Court · 2005
3Cited by4 opinions
- Floor Solutions, LLC v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
- City of Salem v. GuillenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
- Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
- City of Salem v. GuillenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009