Legal Opinion
State v. Ausmus
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided March 5, 2003No. CC Nos. 9901-40130, 9812-51296, 9901-40371, 9901-40129, 9901-40128, 9901-40231, 9905-13654, 9901-40232, 9901-40126, 9812-51298, 9901-40234 CA A107691 (Control), A107692, A107693, A107694, A107695, A107696, A107697, A107698, A107699, A107700, A107701 SC S49207 (Control), S49364PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.
The issue in each of these cases, which were consolidated on appeal and on review, concerns the facial constitutionality of one variation of the crime labeled in ORS 166.025(l)(e) as disorderly conduct. ORS 166.025(l)(e) provides, in part:
“A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
“(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse!.]”
Each defendant demurred to an accusatory instrument that charged…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Colten v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. ToevsOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- Delgado v. SoudersOregon Supreme Court · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- State v. StamperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- State v. Illig-RennOregon Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. Illig-RennOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. Hirsch/FriendOregon Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. BabsonOregon Supreme Court · 2014
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.