State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"requires a fact-specific inquiry into the totality of the circumstances * * *. * * * Although determining the existence of such a causal connection requires examination of the specific facts at issue in a particular case, we view several considerations to be relevant to that determination, including (1) the temporal proximity between the unlawful police conduct and the defendant's [statement], (2) the existence of any intervening circumstances, and (3) the presence of any circumstances * * * that mitigated the effect of the unlawful police conduct."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 242 Or. App. 38 - State v. Lay · 240 Or. App. 215 - State v. Olinger

2. “in the plural, because there were two. The first occurred before defendant received Miranda warnings and the second occurred afterward. We take them up in turn. As noted above, to establish the requisite connection between an unlawful seizure and disputed evidence, a defendant must establish the existence of a minimal factual nexus—that is, the existence of a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 242 Or. App. 38 - State v. Lay · 240 Or. App. 215 - State v. Olinger

3. “After a defendant shows a minimal factual nexus between unlawful police conduct and the defendant's consent, then the state has the burden to prove that the defendant's consent was independent of, or only tenuously related to, the unlawful police conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 242 Or. App. 38 - State v. Lay · State v. Smith