176 Or. App. 149 - State v. Lam’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “"(1) A person commits the crime of interfering with a peace officer * * * if the person, knowing that another person is a peace officer * * *: "(a) Intentionally acts in a manner that prevents, or attempts to prevent, a peace officer * * * from performing the lawful duties of the officer with regards to another person[.]"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 238 - State v. Scheirman · 492 F. Supp. 2d 1230 - Ashley v. Sutton

2. “"[t]he Oregon Revised Statutes do not define 'prevent.' Its common meaning is 'to hold or keep back (one about to act).' Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1798 (unabridged ed. 1993) (noting that this usage often occurs with 'from'). In one sense, 'prevent' 'implies an insurmountable obstacle or impediment.' Id. This definition carries a connotation of physical conduct, because speech does not insurmountably keep or hold a person back in any literal sense. However, prevent also is synonymous with forestall, which means 'to intercept or stop something in its course.' Id. Speech alone arguably could hold back a peace officer by inducing the officer to stop performing his or her duties. Because there are two plausible interpretations of the scope of the phrase 'acts in a manner that prevents or attempts to prevent,' it is ambiguous. See State ex rel. OHSU v. Haas , 325 Or. 492 , 503, 942 P.2d 261 (1997) (concluding that the scope of the term 'employee' in OEC 503(1)(d) was ambiguous); State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Saechao , 167 Or.App. 227 , 231, 2 P.3d 935 , rev. den. , 331 Or. 283 [ 18 P.3d 1101 ] (2000) (concluding that the scope of the phrase 'participating with' in ORS 166.015 was ambiguous)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 238 - State v. Scheirman

3. “In light of the unequivocal and uncontroverted statement of intent by the drafter of ORS 162.247, we conclude that the statute was not intended to reach speech alone.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 238 - State v. Scheirman