Oregon Supreme Court· 8/24/2006

State v. Illig-Renn

Citations

142 P.3d 62
341 Or. 228
2006 Ore. LEXIS 816

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that statute at issue in Illig-Renn covered nearly all protected conduct covered by statute held to be overbroad in Ausmus
noting that the Court of Appeals used the phrase “speech neutral” to mean “statutes that do not by their terms forbid particular forms of expression”
reiterating that we have limited facial overbreadth challenges to stat- utes that “more or less expressly identify protected speech as a statutory element of the offenses that they define”
explaining that only laws that “expressly” or “obviously” target activi- ties protected by Article I, sections 8 and 26, are subject to facial challenge
reasoning that the term “lawful order” as an element of a criminal offense left nothing to “ad hoc judgment” because it “invokes ascertainable standards from an outside source”
observing that a statute that could be applied to more than speech could not be examined under the first two categories of Robertson because it did not expressly or obviously restrain expression

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Carson, Gillette, Durham, Riggs, Balmer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.