section 20 equal privileges guarantee in Oregon

2010The guarantee under Article I, section 20, “reaches forbidden inequality in the administration of laws under delegated authority as well as in legislative enactments.” State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 239 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den, 454 US 1084 (1981).

2010The guarantee under Article I, section 20, “reaches forbidden inequality in the administration of laws under delegated authority as well as in legislative enactments.” State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 239 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den, 454 US 1084 (1981).

2010The guarantee under Article I, section 20, "reaches forbidden inequality in the administration of laws under delegated authority as well as in legislative enactments." State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 239 , 630 P.2d 810 , cert. den., 454 U.S. 1084 , 102 S.Ct. 640 , 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981).

2010The guarantee under Article I, section 20, “reaches forbidden inequality in the administration of laws under delegated authority as well as in legislative enactments.” State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 239 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den, 454 US 1084 (1981).

2010To succeed, defendant would have to demonstrate that (1) the class that he claims is subjected to adverse government action is truly a class (for example, Italian-Americans), and not simply a group that would have no class identity except for the challenged law (for example, persons who file late petitions for review); (2) the class is one that “ ‘is based *312 on immutable traits or traits on the basis of which class members are subjected to adverse social or political stereotyping or prejudice,’ ” Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. v. City of Portland, 214 Or App 534, 540 , 166 P3d 580 (2007) (

2010To succeed, defendant would have to demonstrate that (1) the class that he claims is subjected to adverse government action is truly a class (for example, Italian-Americans), and not simply a group that would have no class identity except for the challenged law (for example, persons who file late petitions for review); (2) the class is one that “ ‘is based *312 on immutable traits or traits on the basis of which class members are subjected to adverse social or political stereotyping or prejudice,’ ” Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. v. City of Portland, 214 Or App 534, 540 , 166 P3d 580 (2007) (

2010To succeed, defendant would have to demonstrate that (1) the class that he claims is subjected to adverse government action is truly a class (for example, Italian-Americans), and not simply a group that would have no class identity except for the challenged law (for example, persons who file late petitions for review); (2) the class is one that “ ‘is based *312 on immutable traits or traits on the basis of which class members are subjected to adverse social or political stereotyping or prejudice,’ ” Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. v. City of Portland, 214 Or App 534, 540 , 166 P3d 580 (2007) (

2010To succeed, defendant would have to demonstrate that (1) the class that he claims is subjected to adverse government action is truly a class (for example, Italian-Americans), and not simply a group that would have no class identity except for the challenged law (for example, persons who file late petitions for review); (2) the class is one that “ ‘is based *312 on immutable traits or traits on the basis of which class members are subjected to adverse social or political stereotyping or prejudice,’ ” Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. v. City of Portland, 214 Or App 534, 540 , 166 P3d 580 (2007) (

2007The Supreme Court has held that a statute suffers from that defect if: “(1) it permits arbitrary and even retroactive punishment and delegates uncontrolled discretion to judges, juries, and law enforcement personnel to decide what and whom to punish, thereby violating the equal privileges guarantee of Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, the ex post facto prohibition of Article I, section 21, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and it fails to provide fair warning of what kind of orders are unlawful and must be obeyed, also in

2007The Supreme Court has held that a statute suffers from that defect if: “(1) it permits arbitrary and even retroactive punishment and delegates uncontrolled discretion to judges, juries, and law enforcement personnel to decide what and whom to punish, thereby violating the equal privileges guarantee of Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, the ex post facto prohibition of Article I, section 21, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and it fails to provide fair warning of what kind of orders are unlawful and must be obeyed, also in

2007However, a term “need not define an offense with such exactitude that a person could determine in advance whether specific conduct in all possible factual circumstances will be found to be an offense.” State v. Page, 129 Or App 558, 563 , 879 P2d 903 (1994).

2007However, a term “need not define an offense with such exactitude that a person could determine in advance whether specific conduct in all possible factual circumstances will be found to be an offense.” State v. Page, 129 Or App 558, 563 , 879 P2d 903 (1994).

2006In State v. Graves, 299 Or 189, 195 , 700 P2d 244 (1985), this court described that aspect of the vagueness problem: “[A] criminal statute must not be so vague as to permit a judge or jury to exercise uncontrolled discretion in punishing defendants, because this offends the principle against ex post facto laws embodied in Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution.

2006In State v. Graves, 299 Or 189, 195 , 700 P2d 244 (1985), this court described that aspect of the vagueness problem: “[A] criminal statute must not be so vague as to permit a judge or jury to exercise uncontrolled discretion in punishing defendants, because this offends the principle against ex post facto laws embodied in Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution.

1998Area LGBC, 82 Or App 193 , 728 P2d 63 , modified on other grounds 83 Or App 552 , 733 P2d 451 (1987) (holding that the advantage of using special annexation procedures conferred a privilege under section 20).

1998Area LGBC, 82 Or App 193 , 728 P2d 63 , modified on other grounds 83 Or App 552 , 733 P2d 451 (1987) (holding that the advantage of using special annexation procedures conferred a privilege under section 20).

1998Area LGBC, 82 Or App 193 , 728 P2d 63 , modified on other grounds 83 Or App 552 , 733 P2d 451 (1987) (holding that the advantage of using special annexation procedures conferred a privilege under section 20).

1998Area LGBC, 82 Or App 193 , 728 P2d 63 , modified on other grounds 83 Or App 552 , 733 P2d 451 (1987) (holding that the advantage of using special annexation procedures conferred a privilege under section 20).