Legal Opinion

State v. Borowski

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 28, 2009No. 05-0307M, A132129 (Control), 05-0309M, A132130, 05-0310M, A132131, 05-0333M, A132132, 05-0337M, A132133, 05-0339M, A132134, 05-0341M, A132135, 05-0342M, A132136, 05-0364M, A132137, 05-0367M, A132138, 05-0426M, A132139, 05-0427M, A132140, 05-0564M, A132141PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Defendants were arrested for “[i]nterfer[ing] with agricultural operations,” a Class A misdemeanor. ORS 164.887 (set out below). At trial, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute on its face violated the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States constitutions. When the trial court denied their motions, defendants entered conditional pleas of no contest, reserving the right to withdraw the pleas in the event of a successful appeal. The court entered judgments of conviction. Defendants appeal. We conclude that the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Police Dept. of Chicago v. MosleySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Carey v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Grosjean v. American Press Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  5. Police Department of Chicago v. MosleySupreme Court of the United States · 1972

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Project Veritas v. Michael SchmidtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2023
  2. State v. ChristianCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  3. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. Couey v. ClarnoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  5. James Arthur Ross v. John Myrick, et al.District Court, D. Oregon · 2018

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