106 Or. App. 144 - State v. Stolz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[e]ven if some details of defendant’s violation of the restraining order are admissible at trial on the resisting arrest charge, that does not mean that the charges must be joined.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 123 Or. App. 129 - State v. Delker · State v. Sardinha

2. “"Details of the offense underlying an arrest are not required to be shown to prove any element of resisting arrest. Neither is any element of violating a restraining order necessary for proof of resisting arrest. The elements of the two charges are different, and the necessary facts of each charge can be adequately shown without reference to the facts of the other. In the language of Boyd , the two charges are not "cross-related." Even if some details of defendant's violation of the restraining order are admissible at trial on the resisting arrest charge, that does not mean that the charges must be joined." 106 Or.App. at 148 , 806 P.2d 715 . (Emphasis supplied; footnote omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 123 Or. App. 129 - State v. Delker

3. “"We hold that the two charges arise out of the same act or transaction if they are so closely linked in time, place and circumstance that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without relating details of the other charge."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 123 Or. App. 129 - State v. Delker