12 Or. App. 152 - State v. Fuller’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Fuller v. Oregon (1974), State v. Blank (1997)
27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gideon v. Wainwright · Argersinger v. Hamlin · James v. Strange · 71 Cal. 2d 388 - In Re Allen
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The state submits that the costs `specially incurred' in prosecuting a defendant include the costs of providing a court-appointed counsel and the payment of investigator's expenses. These are, in fact, the principal expenses which the state `specially' incurs in prosecuting an individual defendant. The statute specifically excludes a jury fee or the costs of summoning jurors. In addition, most of the costs of the prosecution side of the case are excluded from consideration as costs. The `costs of prosecution' specifically do not include district attorneys' salaries, sheriffs' salaries, jurors' fees, police investigators, etc. See, Minutes, Criminal Law Revision Commission Meeting, May 14, 1970, pp. 27-30. * * *" 12 Or. App. at 157 , 504 P.2d at 1396 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“expenditures in connection with the maintenance and operation of government agencies that must be made by the public irrespective of specific violations of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The requirement of repayment is imposed only on a convicted defendant. (2) The court does not order payment of this expense unless the convicted person is or will be able to pay it without undue hardship to himself or dependents, considering the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden payment will impose. (3) Revocation of probation shall occur only if defendant willfully fails to make payment, having financial ability to do so. (4) Defendant may petition sentencing court to adjust the amount of any installment payments, or the total amount due, to fit a changing financial condition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rogers
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.