199 Or. App. 191 - State v. William’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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. “"Again, we hesitate to read the Supreme Court's decision too broadly. As in [ State v. ] Campbell [, 299 Or. 633 , 705 P.2d 694 (1985)], the issue before the court in Moore was narrow. It did not involve the sort of historical exception that is involved in this case [(the public records exception)] and that the court recognized in prior cases such as [ State v. ] Saunders [, 14 Or. 300 , 12 P. 441 (1886), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Marsh, 260 Or. 416 , 490 P.2d 491 (1971), cert. den., 406 U.S. 974 , 92 S.Ct. 2420 , 32 L.Ed.2d 674 (1972),] and [ State ex rel. ] Gladden [ v. Lonergan, 201 Or. 163 , 269 P.2d 491 (1954)], in which the court held that `[t]here is nothing to indicate that the framers of our constitution intended thereby to do away with the well-established exceptions to the confrontation rule.' [ Lonergan ], 201 Or. at 177 [ 269 P.2d 491 ]. In fact, the Moore court cited both cases, without suggesting that either was no longer good law. 334 Or. at 339-40 [ 49 P.3d 785 ]."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 247 Or. App. 362 - State v. Copeland

2. “as opposed to essential, facts in a DUII prosecution—we simply concluded that the trial court did not err in admitting the Intoxilyzer certifications without requiring the oral testimony of the person who had prepared the certification. Id. Defendant does not contend that Conway and William were erroneously decided and must be overruled. Nor do we understand defendant to contend that we erred in concluding that public records fall within a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 247 Or. App. 362 - State v. Copeland

3. “"We hold that the trial court's admission of the laboratory report without requiring the state to produce at trial the criminalist who prepared the report or to demonstrate that the criminalist was unavailable to testify violated defendant's right to confront the witness against him under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 247 Or. App. 362 - State v. Copeland