Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cannongreen2 sentences2025We begin with defendant’s overbreadth argument, in which he relies on Cannon, where we observed that “the gravamen of an over- breadth challenge is an ‘asserted lack of probable cause’ ” and held that “probable cause must exist for each device that a warrant authorizes to be searched.” 299 Or App at 626, 629 . 2025We begin with defendant’s overbreadth argument, in which he relies on Cannon, where we observed that “the gravamen of an over- breadth challenge is an ‘asserted lack of probable cause’ ” and held that “probable cause must exist for each device that a warrant authorizes to be searched.” 299 Or App at 626, 629 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mansorgreen1 sentence2023We agree with the state’s framing of the over- breadth requirement—that it ensures that the warrant is not purporting to authorize a search for evidence beyond what “the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.” Mansor, 363 Or at 212 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hirsch/Friendgreen2 sentences2021As that court has explained, “Because the right to bear arms is not an absolute right, our Article I, section 27, holdings reflect a judicial recognition that the legislature has wide latitude to enact specific regulations restricting the possession and use of weapons to promote public safety.” State v. Christian, 354 Or 22, 33 , 307 P3d 429 (2013); see State v. Hirsch/Friend, 338 Or 622, 678-79 , 114 P3d 1104 (2005) (rejecting an over- breadth challenge to ORS 166.270(1) under Article I, sec- tion 27; holding that the framers of the Oregon Constitution understood it to be within the legislatu 2021As that court has explained, “Because the right to bear arms is not an absolute right, our Article I, section 27, holdings reflect a judicial recognition that the legislature has wide latitude to enact specific regulations restricting the possession and use of weapons to promote public safety.” State v. Christian, 354 Or 22, 33 , 307 P3d 429 (2013); see State v. Hirsch/Friend, 338 Or 622, 678-79 , 114 P3d 1104 (2005) (rejecting an over- breadth challenge to ORS 166.270(1) under Article I, sec- tion 27; holding that the framers of the Oregon Constitution understood it to be within the legislatu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Christian
green
2 sentences2021As that court has explained, “Because the right to bear arms is not an absolute right, our Article I, section 27, holdings reflect a judicial recognition that the legislature has wide latitude to enact specific regulations restricting the possession and use of weapons to promote public safety.” State v. Christian, 354 Or 22, 33 , 307 P3d 429 (2013); see State v. Hirsch/Friend, 338 Or 622, 678-79 , 114 P3d 1104 (2005) (rejecting an over- breadth challenge to ORS 166.270(1) under Article I, sec- tion 27; holding that the framers of the Oregon Constitution understood it to be within the legislatu 2021As that court has explained, “Because the right to bear arms is not an absolute right, our Article I, section 27, holdings reflect a judicial recognition that the legislature has wide latitude to enact specific regulations restricting the possession and use of weapons to promote public safety.” State v. Christian, 354 Or 22, 33 , 307 P3d 429 (2013); see State v. Hirsch/Friend, 338 Or 622, 678-79 , 114 P3d 1104 (2005) (rejecting an over- breadth challenge to ORS 166.270(1) under Article I, sec- tion 27; holding that the framers of the Oregon Constitution understood it to be within the legislatu | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Friddle
green
1 sentence2019We have explained that the gravamen of an over- breadth challenge is “an asserted lack of probable cause for the invasion of interests in privacy in premises or items.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Delgado
green
2 sentences2005The court noted at the outset that, in the context of an over-breadth challenge such as the one at issue before it, the court “[o]rdinarily * * * would have no reason to go beyond the facts described in the accusatory instrument to resolve whether error was committed in overruling defendant’s demurrer.” Id. at 398 n 2. 2005In light of the factual record before it, however, the court chose to note that, in the particular circumstances at hand, “there [was] no evidence to support any possible charge of an illegal intent to use the weapon or an illegal use of the weapon.” Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Ausmus
green
2 sentences2005State v. Ausmus, 336 Or 493 , 85 P3d 864 (2004). 2005State v. Ausmus, 336 Or 493 , 85 P3d 864 (2004). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Woodcock
green
1 sentence2000Because ORS 167.065(l)(b) applies to the giving, renting, loaning or otherwise providing materials containing ‘obscenities,’ regardless of the significance of the words in the context of the work taken as a whole, the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad under the Oregon Constitution.” Woodcock, 75 Or App at 662-63 . 15 The reasoning of Frink and Woodcock controls the overbreadth analysis in this case as well. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.