33 Or. App. 491 - State v. Steele’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Nothing in the legislative history of ORS 163.405 indicates whether a merger is appropriate in the situation presented here. As Welch points out, there is no precise formula for determining legislative intent in situations such as this. It tells us, citing Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 , 75 S.Ct. 620 , 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955), that we read statutes `with the saving grace of common sense.' 264 Or. at 393 , 505 P.2d [910] at 912. We do not believe that the convictions for oral and anal sodomy in the first degree merge as constituting but one crime. The victim was exposed to additional fear, humiliation and danger during the second sodomy. We see no reason why we should hold that a man who commits one sodomy may do so again and again to the same victim with impunity. * * * The defendant's two acts of sodomy constituted two separate crimes, separately punishable."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Garcia · 96 Wis. 2d 25 - State v. Eisch

2. “[W]hen the state relies upon precisely the same act to establish the use-physical-force element of robbery and the cause-physical-injury element of assault, the assimilation of one crime into the other is so substantial as to warrant assuming a legislative intent to merge.”

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