State v. De Ford
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
“The general rule is that courts approach with hesitancy the question of declaring a statute unconstitutional, and so long as a reasonable doubt exists, a statute will not be held to be in contravention of the Constitution. The courts will declare a statute void when its repugnancy to the Constitution is clear, palpable and free from reasonable doubt: Cook v. Port of Portland, 20 Or. 580 (27 Pac. 263, 13 L. R. A. 533).” Smith v. Cameron, 106 Or. 1, 10 (210 Pac. 716, 719, 27 A. L. R. 510; State v. Kozer, 116 Or. 581, 586 (242 Pac. 621); State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443, 457 (204 Pac. 958, 206 Pac.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Dumbra v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. FloresCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
- State v. HooverOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- State v. DuffyOregon Supreme Court · 1930
- State v. LinvilleOregon Supreme Court · 1928
- State Ex Rel. Johnson v. ThomsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1948
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.