State v. Montez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · 131 Or. App. 429 - State v. Lunow

2. “"In the quest for jurors who will conscientiously apply the law and find the facts, the question is whether the juror is capable of `trying the case fairly and impartially upon the evidence adduced in court.' * * *. "Whether a juror is actually biased or not is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion. ORCP 57 D(1)(g). That court has the advantage, which we lack, of seeing the challenged prospective juror and observing the juror's demeanor, apparent intelligence and candor, all of which are factors in the trial of a challenge for cause. * * * The trial court's judgment as to a prospective juror's ultimate qualifications is entitled to great weight. The court's decision will not be disturbed absent a finding of an abuse of discretion. * * *. "A prospective juror's approval of or opposition to the death penalty alone is not determinative of whether the juror may serve as a juror or must be excused. The question is whether the prospective juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his or her duties if selected as a juror. * * * However, it is not enough that a prospective juror believes that he can be fair and impartial. The trial court in exercising discretion must find from all the facts that the juror will be impartial and fair and not be consciously or unconsciously biased. The test of a juror's disqualification is the probability of bias or prejudice as determined by the court." (Citations and footn”

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

3. “"The United States Supreme Court has provided no practical guidance as to what constitutes a `republican form of government,' because that Court has held that, within the federal government, the enforcement of the guarantee is assigned not to the federal courts but to the political branches. See Pacific States Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Oregon, 223 US 118 , 32 SCt 224 , 56 LEd 377 (1912) (challenge to a license tax enacted by an initiative measure). Thus, claims arising under Article IV, section 4, do not permit justiciable controversies in federal courts. "That does not mean that the states may not adjudicate the compatibility of state law with the guarantee clause. This court addressed that issue with regard to Oregon's initiative system in Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Or 118, 144-45 , 74 P 710 , 75 P 222 (1903) (initiative and referendum does not abolish or destroy the republican form of government, or substitute or destroy the republican form of government or substitute another in its place). See Kiernan v. Portland, 57 Or 454, 469-80 , 111 P 379 , 112 P 402 (1910); Oregon v. Pacific States Tel. & Tel. Co., 53 Or 162, 166 , 99 P 427 (1909)." (Footnote omitted.) 309 Or. at 603, 789 P.2d 1352 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 130 Or. App. 1 - Lowe v. Keisling