199 Or. App. 305 - State v. Johnson’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. “[t]o accept the state's position would stretch the meaning of the phrases 'connected together' or 'common scheme or plan' to a level of generality that equates the expansive standard for relevance * * * with the connectedness between offenses required in ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C), rendering almost useless the tests in subparagraphs (1)(b)(A) and (1)(b)(B).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 265 - State v. Keith

2. “defendant's marijuana-growing activity placed him in the drug trade, which 'connect[s]' him with the methamphetamine-related robbery of the victim or, * * * is part of a scheme common to that robbery.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 265 - State v. Keith

3. “of the same or similar character, ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A), or based on the same act or transaction, ORS 132.560(1)(b)(B).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 265 - State v. Keith