State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1986
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The sentencing court must be provided with a great variety of information in order that it can competently perform its most burdensome function. * * * Tlie issue after conviction * * * is not: Was the crime committed? Rather, the issues at this time are: What is the character of the defendant? Will he be a menace to society if he is not incarcerated? On these issues the record of arrests is obviously very pertinent. Admittedly, there are instances in which a person is arrested although his conduct is exemplary. Sentencing courts know this; sentencing courts know the difference between an arrest and a conviction. * * * xile possibility of harm from furnishing the sentencing court with a convicted defendant’s arrest record we consider remote and heavily outweighed by the importance of providing and sentencing court with such information.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Egelak v. State“It is obvious that the later statute, ORS 137.530, amended by implication ORS 137.110. Amendment of statutes by implication is recognized when the matter is clear. State ex rel. Medford Pear Co. v. Fowler, 207 Or. 182, 195 , 295 P.2d 167 (1956). The information the probation officer is directed to obtain by ORS 137.530 is information which can be in aggravation or mitigation. The statutes now authorize the presentation of such information in two ways: by testimony in open court or by the presentence report. The latter is at the sentencing court's discretion. [ 390 P.2d at 331-32 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lipsky“The circumstances must be presented by the testimony of witnesses examined in open Court... . No affidavit or testimony, or representation of any kind, verbal or written, can be offered to or received by the Court, or a judge thereof, in aggravation or mitigation of the punishment, except as provided in this and the preceding section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lipsky
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.