Legal Opinion

City of Hillsboro v. Purcell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 14, 1987No. 85-0424, 85-0425 CA A41670 (Control), A41671PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.

Defendants are door-to-door salesmen. They appeal 1 their convictions for violating an ordinance of the city of Hillsboro, which prohibits “calling at residences” to make sales or for certain other commercial purposes. In legal literature it has been known as a “Green River Ordinance.” Defendants argue that the ordinance violates the federal and state constitutions in a number of respects. We agree with their contention that the ordinance violates their rights of expression under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. 2 On that basis, we reverse the convictions and need not address…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Martin v. City of StruthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  4. Breard v. AlexandriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  5. Hynes v. Mayor and Council of OradellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Moser v. FrohnmayerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  2. Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API