
    Argued and submitted July 9,
    review dismissed August 29, 1991
    STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. LESLIE J. MOELLER, Respondent on Review, STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. GARY ARNOLD MOELLER, Respondent on Review, STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. NORMA MAE GALLAGHER, Respondent on Review, STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. RONALD JAMES GAZELEY, Respondent on Review, STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. GEORGE LIN WARN, Respondent on Review, 
      STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. KARLA K. WARN, Respondent on Review.
    
    
      (CC 89-1379; CA A65221 (Control))
    (CC 89-1380; CA A65222)
    (CC 89-1410; CA A65223)
    (CC 89-1411; CA A65224)
    (CC 89-1422; CA A65225)
    
      (CC 89-1423; CA A65226)
    (SC S37943)
    (Cases Consolidated)
    815 P2d 701
    Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Elizabeth A. Baldwin, Astoria, argued the cause and filed the response to the petition for respondents on review.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

This case involves demurrers challenging certain penal law provisions for vagueness. After this court allowed review of these consolidated cases, State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev allowed 311 Or 349, 811 P2d 144 (1991), the 1991 Legislative Assembly superseded the penal provisions that gave rise to the challenge. Or Laws 1991, ch 690, § 1 (HB 2390 B-Eng § 1) (effective July 25, 1991). Accordingly, the court has determined that the order granting review of the Court of Appeals’ decision should be dismissed.

Review dismissed. 
      
       The words challenged were “as part of a * * * scheme or network.” OAR 253-04-002, App 4 (approved by Or Laws 1989, ch 790, § 87).
     