Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 2006No. ODOT 88691, 89838, 90587, 90588, 90589, 91564; CA A116814; SC S50458; ODOT 79817, 85185; CA A113875, A114027; SC S49978; DMV 66981, 68677, 70642, 74573, 74889; CA A106450; SC S50007; DMV 58118; CA A102328; SC S50003; DMV 61907, 63047; CA A100658, A100659; SC S50044Published

(Consolidated for Argument and Opinion)

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiggs, J.

I concur with the majority in every respect except that part of its opinion holding that the OMIA’s exemption from the permit and fee requirements for on-premises signs violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. The majority incorrectly concludes that the OMIA impermissibly regulates the content of speech. I conclude that the OMIA is constitutional under Article I, section 8.

This court’s framework for analyzing claims under Article I, section 8, was set out in State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402, 649 P2d 569 (1982). This court has summarized that framework as follows:

“In State v.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  2. State v. PlowmanOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. HenryOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  4. City of Portland v. TidymanOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State v. CiancanelliOregon Supreme Court · 2005

5 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