Korgan v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Meyer

    120 Or. App. 319 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    In Meyer, we began our analysis by noting that "[t]o withstand a vagueness challenge, the terms of a criminal statute ‘must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it of [sic ] what conduct on their part will render them liable in penalties.’ "

    Although Palm Gardens was an administrative law case, the statute there was upheld "under standards governing review of penal laws challenged for vagueness." Korgan v. OLCC, 72 Or. App. 31, 36, 695 P.2d 81, rev den 299 Or. 443 (1985). (Emphasis supplied.)

  2. Sekne v. City of Portland

    81 Or. App. 630 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 6 times
    In Sekne v. City of Portland, 81 Or. App. 630, 637, 726 P.2d 959 (1986), rev den 302 Or. 615 (1987), we cited House and Gatewood for the proposition that "[n]udity alone does not take dance out of the realm of protected expression."

    ORS 472.180(5) provides that the Liquor Control Commission may cancel or suspend any license, or impose a monetary penalty in lieu of or in addition to suspension, if it finds that the licensee maintains a "lewd" establishment. Neither that section, see Korgan v. OLCC, 72 Or. App. 31, 695 P.2d 81, rev den 299 Or. 443 (1985), nor any other provision of the act, either forbids or allows nude dancing or nudity in establishments that serve liquor or addresses whether those activities are criminal. Neither is there any necessary inconsistency between the regulations and the ordinances.