149 Or. App. 690 - State v. Sperry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[U]nder the circumstances presented here, the trial court could reconsider [its oral grant of a motion for a judgment of acquittal] and withdraw its ruling without violating”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Janette Price, Warden v. Duyonn Andre Vincent · Price, Warden v. Vincent

2. “There is, indeed, substantial appeal to defendant’s ‘bright-line’ position that, once a trial judge utters the ‘magic words’ of acquittal, further prosecution is precluded. Moreover, to the extent the state is urging that, as a constitutional matter, the oral allowance of a judgment of acquittal is never entitled to preclusive effect, that position is constitutionally unsupported and practically unworkable. Nevertheless, we do agree with the state that an oral ruling allowing a motion for judgment of acquittal is not preclusive, and may be rescinded, where, as here, neither the parties nor the court have detrimentally relied on that ruling — e.g., through presentation of arguments, introduction of evidence, or instruction or discharging of the jury — in the interval between the oral allowance and rescission.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 22 - Commonwealth v. Viglione

3. “‘In the case before us, no final judgment of acquittal was ever entered, and certainly Baker was not subjected to the harassment of successive prosecutions. Nor did the prosecution seek a delay in order to obtain a more favorable opportunity to convict. The only prejudice Baker suffered is psychological; his hopes were first raised, then quickly lowered. But so ephemeral and insubstantial an injury is not proscribed by the Constitution.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 22 - Commonwealth v. Viglione