Opinion

Ackerley Communications, Inc. v. Multnomah County

  • 303 Or. 165
  • 734 P.2d 885
Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 31, 1987
Status
Published
On the bench
Carson, Lent, Linde
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 82.6%

ordinance that violates Article I, section 8, also violates equal privileges and immunities requirement of Article I, section 20, because local government can have no constitutionally acceptable interest in regulating expression based on content

How later courts described this case

  • ordinance that violates Article I, section 8, also violates equal privileges and immunities requirement of Article I, section 20, because local government can have no constitutionally acceptable interest in regulating expression based on content

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*166 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petitioner on review, Multnomah County, has filed a motion which reads as follows:

“Petitioner herein, Multnomah County, hereby withdraws its Petition for Review as though the same was never filed, and moves the Court to dismiss the Petition without taking any other action. If the Court should refuse to grant this Motion to withdraw Petition and instead proposes to vacate the Court of Appeals Opinion involved herein, petitioner and respondent ask leave to be heard further on that matter.”

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of this case, we dismiss the Petition for Review.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.