State v. Corcilius
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtOrtega, P. J.
*21Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for violating ORS 164.805(1)(a), which prohibits offensive littering by "creat[ing] an objectionable stench" by intentionally "[d]iscarding or depositing any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse upon *** any public way." He contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal in which he argued that ORS 164.805(1)(a) does not encompass his conduct, public urination. The question presented is an issue of statutory interpretation, and we therefore review for legal error by employing the methodology set…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
- Vannatta v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. Gonzalez-ValenzuelaOregon Supreme Court · 2015
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- HollisterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- State v. M. A. S.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- State v. MeiserCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
- National Surety Corporation v. TIG Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2022
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.