State v. Laundy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the constitutionality of a state enactment is assailed, the only question for the court to decide is one of power. The sole inquiry is,—Does the statute exceed any limitation placed upon state legislative authority by the organic law of the state or by the Constitution of the United States? (Authorities cited.) “The legislature may, within constitutional limitations, make any law which promotes the order, safety, health, morals and general welfare of society: Union Fishermen’s Co-operative Packing Co. v. Shoemaker, 98 Or. 659, 674 ( 193 Pac. 476 , 194 Pac. 854 ); and, subject to constitutional limitations, it is the exclusive province of the legislature to determine what acts are inimical to the public welfare, and to declare that such acts when done shall constitute crimes”: (Authorities cited.) State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443, 457, 458 ( 204 Pac. 958 , 206 Pac. 290 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. De Ford

2. ““In this jurisdiction it is not permissible to join two or more counts in a single indictment. An indictment must in the language of our statute ‘ charge but one crime, ’ and consequently if an indictment charges a defendant with two or more distinct and substantive offenses, it is bad for duplicity. If, however, the facts charged constitute but a single offense, the indictment is not duplicitous, and therefore acts which form component parts of a single transaction may be charged together, and acts entering into a single and continuous transaction ordinarily can be charged together * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Du Bois

3. ““1. For a crime committed or attempted in his presence; “2. When the person arrested has committed a felony although not in his presence; “3. When a felony has in fact been committed and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.” Section 1763, Or. L.; State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443, 495 ( 204 Pac. 958 , 206 Pac. 290 ). “A private person may arrest another for the causes specified in section 1763 in like manner and with like effect as a peace officer without a warrant.” Section 1768, Or. L.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cody