Legal Opinion

Moser v. Frohnmayer

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 1, 1992No. 89C-12416; CA A67796PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, P. J.

Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of ORS 759.290. He appeals from a summary judgment for defendants. We reverse.

Plaintiff is a chimney sweep who uses a ‘ ‘telemarketing computer” to advertise his service. The computer automatically and systematically dials telephone numbers in plaintiffs service area. When it connects with someone who answers “hello,” it plays a recorded message concerning plaintiffs business. ORS 759.290 provides:

“(1) No person shall use an automatic dialing and announcing device to solicit the purchase of any realty, goods…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. City of Portland v. TidymanOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  4. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of FadeleyOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Bank of Oregon v. Independent News, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Moser v. FrohnmayerOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. City of Eugene v. PowlowskiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  3. City of Eugene v. PowlowskiCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  4. Moser v. FrohnmayerOregon Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API