Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 ORAPP 649 - State v. Walraven

State v. Walraven’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

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

  1. “own and/or operate a marijuana related business within the city notwithstanding the provisions of Cave Junction Municipal Code 5.04, et seq. " CJMC 5.18.030. That is, the city explicitly has exempted marijuana businesses from the city's general business licensing requirement requiring compliance with federal law. As a result, that general licensing requirement no longer impedes the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within the city. Those two significant changes mean this appeal no longer presents a justiciable controversy. An appeal becomes moot when a decision "will no longer have a practical effect on the rights or obligations of a party.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.