Legal Opinion

State v. Excel Logging Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 10, 1988No. B69-206; CA A44950Published

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

The state appeals pursuant to ORS 138.060(1) from a pre-trial order dismissing a criminal complaint. Defendant was charged with failure to avoid cable line rub. OAR 629-43-026(2); ORS 477.625 et seq; ORS 477.993(4). Before trial, it filed a motion for an omnibus hearing, contending that OAR 629-43-026(2) is unconstitutionally vague and void on its face. See ORS 135.037. At the hearing, both parties made offers of proof. The trial court held that OAR 629-43-026(2) “is unconstitutionally vague and cannot be the basis for a criminal prosecution.”1

OAR 629-43-026 provides, in relevant part:

“Any…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Perez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. State v. GravesOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State v. CornellOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State v. GatesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  5. State v. NortonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API