Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Wiborg

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 26, 2017No. M19635, M19663; A156084 (Control), A156085Published

1DissentDeVORE, J.

The majority opinion has one of two meanings, and both may be flawed. One meaning erases an essential word from the statute, and the other meaning makes the statute a contradiction in terms. Because I fear that neither meaning may properly construe ORS 165.570(1)(a), I reluctantly dissent.

One reading of the majority opinion may be that a defendant cannot be convicted of the crime of improper use of an emergency communication system if the person knowingly makes an emergency call for the purpose of reporting a situation that the person believes is an emergency, no matter how wildly…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Dept. of Transportation v. StallcupOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Roop v. PARKER NORTHWEST PAVING, CO.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  4. State v. MitcheleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  5. Wyers v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016

4 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