Legal Opinion

City of Portland v. Dollarhide

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 5, 1984No. DA 261430 CA 30780 CA A31427PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*291WARDEN, J.

Defendant was charged with prostitution under section 14.36.065 of the Portland City Code. That section defines the offense in terms that are materially identical to ORS 167.007, the state statute that makes prostitution a crime. Section 14.08.025 of the city code prescribes mandatory minimum fines and periods of imprisonment for prostitution and certain other offenses.1 There are no mandatory minimum penalties for prostitution under state law. ORS 167.007, 161.615,161.635. Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that the mandatory penalties under the city…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. State v. ShumwayOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State v. WedgeOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Landreth v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1958

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. City of Portland v. DollarhideOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  2. City of Portland v. GatewoodCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  3. Denton Plastics, Inc. v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  4. City of Eugene v. KrukCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  5. City of Las Vegas v. Nevada Industries, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1989

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API