Legal Opinion
State v. Tusek
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided June 29, 1981No. B58-052, CA 19478PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.
Defendant was charged with violation of ORS 163.455, accosting for deviate purposes. He demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled and defendant was found guilty by a jury and fined $100. The question presented is whether ORS 163.455 is unconstitutional on its face as a violation of the free speech or equal protection provisions of the Oregon and United States Constitutions.* 1 We hold that it is unconstitutional on the first ground.
ORS 163.455 was enacted as part of the 1971 Oregon Criminal Code. Or Laws 1971, ch 743, § 119. The offense is defined as follows:
"(1) A person commits…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Cohen v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Brandenburg v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Gooding v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Provo City Corp. v. WilldenUtah Supreme Court · 1989
- Provo City Corp. v. WilldenUtah Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. HenryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- State v. HenryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986