# State v. Campbell

> Oregon Supreme Court · February 15, 1973 · 265 Or. 82

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9596871

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RONALD K. CAMPBELL, Appellant; STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. SYLVAN CAMPF, Appellant; STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ED COLLINS, Appellant
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 15, 1973
- **Citations:** 265 Or. 82; 506 P.2d 163; 1973 Ore. LEXIS 409
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Denecke
- **Judges:** O'Connell, McAllister, Denecke, Holman, Howell, Bryson
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9596871

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting challenge under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution to former ORS 254.590 (1971), renumbered as ORS 260.565 (1981

## Opinion text

DENECKE, J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent' from' that part of the majority 'decision affirming the convictions of defendants Campf and ■Collins. I concur with -Mr. Chief Justice O’Connell’s .specially concurring opinion that the terms of -the contract do not provide beyond a,reasonable doubt that Campf and. Collins - knew or intended that Campbell .would pay persons who circulated petitions. •
I alscr concur with that part of the Chief Justice’s *101 opinion that the statute would not he in violation of Art IY, § 1, if it were construed to prohibit all payment of compensation to persons who undertake to organize or administer an initiative or referendum campaign. However, I do not believe that is the most reasonable interpretation of the statute; therefore, I cannot adopt the Chief Justice’s reasoning in affirming the convictions of Campf and Collins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9596871. Public record. Not legal advice.