Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 Or. 535 - State v. York

State v. York’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
4
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2019

7 state decisions

401981199020002010decided

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

  1. “Witnesses ... to a crime are the property of neither the prosecution nor the defense. Both sides have an equal right, and should have an equal opportunity, to interview them. Here the defendant was denied that opportunity which, not only [a] statute, but elemental fairness and due process required that he have. . . . A criminal trial ... is a quest for truth. That quest will more often be successful if both sides have an equal opportunity to interview the persons who have the information from which the truth may be determined. ... It is not suggested here that there was any direct suppression of evidence. But there was unquestionably a suppression of the means by which the defense could obtain evidence. The defense could not know what the eye witnesses to the events in suit were to testify to or how firm they were in their testimony unless defense counsel was provided a fair opportunity for interview. In our judgment the prosecutor’s advice to these eye witnesses frustrated that effort and denied appellant a fair trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]hen access to witnesses is impaired by prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must first take appropriate action to overcome the obstacle sought to be imposed by the prosecutor,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that the state cannot order or advise a witness not to speak to the defense attorneys”. 291 Or. at 543 . The Oregon court, however, noted that it was not holding”
    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.