106 Or. App. 389 - State v. Long’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Denton Plastics[, Inc.] v. City of Portland, 105 Or. App. 302, 305 , 804 P.2d 1199 (1991), we articulated a two-step preemption analysis: (1) Does the ordinance conflict with state law? (2) If so, did the legislature intend to permit a conflict? Legislative permission `can range from express permissive terms to total inattention and indifference to a subject.' City of Portland v. Lodi, 308 Or. 468, 474 , 782 P.2d 415 (1989). There are two types of conflict. The first is facial, when an ordinance directly contradicts a state law in an area of substantive policy. In the criminal context, the facial conflict arises because the ordinance prohibits an act that the state permits or permits an act that the state prohibits. City of Portland v. Dollarhide, 300 Or. 490, 502 , 714 P.2d 220 (1986). If the laws conflict facially, the ordinance is preempted, because the legislature has made a political policy decision. See City of Portland v. Lodi, supra, 308 Or. at 474 [ 782 P.2d 415 ] (1989). "The second type of conflict is when laws dealing with the same subject differ in part but are still compatible as a whole. See City of Portland v. Dollarhide, supra, 300 Or. at 498-499 [ 714 P.2d 220 ]; Harlow v. Clow, 110 Or. 257 , 223 P 541 (1924). This type of conflict is not necessarily fatal to the ordinance. For example, a criminal ordinance and a state statute may prohibit the same general act, but there may be differences in either the elements of, or penalties for, the offenses. In tha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 Or. App. 233 - City of Portland v. Jackson

2. “As jurors, you have the sole responsibility to determine which testimony or portions of testimony you will or will not rely on in reaching your verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 298 Or. App. 438 - State v. Payne

3. “[t]hat a witness false in one part of the testimony of the witness may be distrusted in others.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 298 Or. App. 438 - State v. Payne