Linn County v. Brown
Under Article XI, section 15(2)(c), of the Oregon Constitution, a 鈥減rogram鈥 is 鈥渟pecific 鈥榮ervices鈥 that a 鈥榣ocal government鈥 is to 鈥榩erform鈥 for 鈥榩ersons, government agencies or the public generally鈥欌 and does not include a statutory policy enacted by the legislature.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Multnomah County v. Mehrwein
Under Article 1, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, laws restricting speech are facially unconstitutional only if "written in terms directed at the substance of [speech]" unless "within some historical exception." State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402, 412 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Pike v. Cain
鈥淸T]he issue was the constitutional adequacy of counsel鈥檚 investigation to support his strategy choice at the petitioner鈥檚 sentencing, at which the state would urge the court to sentence the petitioner as a dangerous offender.鈥 See Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 258 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Citizens for Resp. Devel. in The Dalles v. Walmart
Under Morse v. Oregon Division of State Lands, 285 Or 197, 204 (1979), while issuing a permit pursuant ORS 搂 196.825, 鈥減ublic need鈥 for the proposed project only needs to be weighed when the project 鈥渦nreasonably interferes with the paramount policy of the state,鈥 however, the 鈥渦nreasonably interferes鈥 standard always applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use