Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 Or. App. 63 - State v. Wheelon

137 Or. App. 63 - State v. Wheelon’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 1997
most recently cited

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Defendants also argue that the execution of the warrant was unconstitutional, because the Guard participated in it without direct, formal, written authorization from the Governor. The state argues that the use of the Guard was properly authorized. The trial court found that, although the Governor had not authorized the use of the Guard in this particular case, she had ordered the Guard to cooperate with the Yamhill County Interagency Narcotics Team. The trial court further found that, in this ease, the Guard participated under the direct supervision of the state police. Defendant does not challenge those findings. The question, therefore, is whether the Governor’s more general authorization suffices.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.