1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 220 P.3d
  5. 220 P.3d 100 (2009)
 

STATE v. BOROWSKI

05-0307M, A132129 (Control), 05-0309M, A132130, 05-0310M, A132131, 05-0333M, A132132, 05-0337M, A132133, 05-0339M, A132134, 05-0341M, A132135, 05-0342M, A132136, 05-0364M, A132137, 05-0367M, A132138, 05-0426M, A132139, 05-0427M, A132140, 05-0564M, A132141.

220 P.3d 100 (2009)

231 Or. App. 511

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sherry Sue BOROWSKI, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Holly Christiansen, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marilyn Mooshie, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Holly Christiansen, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jesse Brown, aka John # 6 Doe, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ryan Navickas, aka Ryan Doe, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George C. Sexton, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eric C. Navickas, aka Eric C. Nauickas, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Amber Dawn Birmingham, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dorothy Fisher-Smith, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nicole Julia Webb, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stacey Dawn Williams, Defendant-Appellant. State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Amber Dawn Birmingham, Defendant-Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided October 28, 2009.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lauren C. Regan, Eugene, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the brief were Misha J. Dunlap, Civil Liberties Defense Center, and Kenneth Kreuscher.

Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and SCHUMAN, Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge.

SCHUMAN, J.

Defendants were arrested for "[i]nterfer[ing] with agricultural operations," a Class A misdemeanor. ORS 164.887 (set out below). At trial, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute on its face violated the free speech, free assembly, and equality guarantees of the Oregon and United States constitutions. When the trial court denied their motions, defendants entered conditional pleas of no contest, reserving the right to withdraw...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases