State v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 district · 37 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"the fact that police question a person as a suspect in a crime `does not inherently create a "compelling" setting for Oregon constitutional purposes.' State v. Smith, supra, 310 Or. at 11 [ 791 P.2d 836 ]. The circumstances of this case do not rise to the level of custody or compulsion that require Miranda -like warnings. Accordingly, the admission of defendant's statements did not violate defendant's rights under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution." 311 Or. at 205 , 808 P.2d 1002 .”

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

2. “If a party manifests an adoption of a statement of another, the party is in the same position as if the party had personally made the statement. The party becomes the declarant, and the statement of the other person becomes the party’s. Thus, the receipt of evidence of an adoptive admission involves (1) another person’s hearsay statement and (2) a party’s own manifested adoption of the statement.”

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

3. “[T]he traditional rationale for allowing excited utterances to be admitted over a hearsay objection is that the `excitement caused by the startling event or condition temporarily stills the capacity for reflection' and thus is likely to produce `statements free of conscious fabrication.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 243 Or. App. 335 - State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Cmc