Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 Or. 788 - State v. Newton

State v. Newton’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 70 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Donlay (1993), Nyflot v. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety (1985)

2 federal appellate · 70 state decisions — followed in 15 states

4301981199020002010decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Massachusetts v. United States

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

  1. “"The opportunity of an arrested person to promptly communicate beyond confinement is not necessarily of the same magnitude of liberty as marital and procreational privacy which the United States Supreme Court held could only be restricted for `compelling' public interests * * *. Neither, however, is it a minimal thing beneath the notice of the law. The everyday freedom to communicate with others takes on greater importance when one is in the enforced isolation of police custody. Communication may be the means to security release, advice, reassurance of one's family or associates, or professional assistance. For at least these reasons, allowance of a telephone call following arrest has become traditional and incommunicado incarceration is regarded as inconsistent with American notions of ordered liberty. Freedom of an arrested person to communicate is a significant and substantial liberty which may only be officially restricted if there is legal authority to do so." Id. at 807 , 636 P.2d 393 (citation omitted).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “It is arguable that we should adopt an earlier point, e.g., the arrest, by which to define the commencement of `all prosecutions' as that term is used in Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, but we conclude that the formal charge is the legal event which commences the obligation of the state to provide counsel. Functionally, there are no legal procedures for the appointment of counsel for indigents prior to a formal charge being brought and, as we observed in Scharf, 288 Or at 456 n 4 [ 605 P.2d 690 ] the decision to commence criminal rather than administrative proceedings is commonly not made until after a breathalyzer test is refused or taken and the result known. * * * Hence, under Article I, section 11, we concur in the reasoning of Kirby that the right to counsel `in all criminal prosecutions' includes critical stages of the prosecution subsequent to indictment or other formal charge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[knowledge of the techniques of science and technology is sufficiently available, and the variables . . . few enough, that the accused has the opportunity for a meaningful confrontation of the Government’s case at trial through the ordinary processes of cross-examination of the Government’s expert witnesses and the presentation of the evidence of his own experts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.