State v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[e]ven if the state chooses not to use the exact joinder language of ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C), the state must nevertheless use some language specifically connecting the crimes together, or specifying the crimes' common scheme or plan.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 293 Or. App. 514 - State v. Parks · 295 Or. App. 145 - State v. Carter

2. “is not enough to connect the charges together. As the indictment does not contain any other language connecting the two charges, we conclude that the indictment did not allege facts sufficient to establish compliance with ORS 132.560. Accordingly, the trial court erred in disallowing defendant's demurrer. Our conclusion that the trial court erred does not complete our inquiry, as”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 145 - State v. Carter

3. “"If the supreme court shall be of opinion, after consideration of all the matters thus submitted, that the judgment of the court appealed from was such as should have been rendered in the case, such judgment shall be affirmed, notwithstanding any error committed during the trial[.]"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Warren