State v. Rutley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Beginning with the text, we conclude that the statute evidences a clear legislative intent to give drug dealers a reason to locate the 1,000-foot school boundary and stay outside it-by punishing the failure to do so as the most serious of crimes, a Class A felony. The statutory text leaves no doubt that the legislature intended to protect children from drug use and the violence and other negative influences that accompany drug delivery. Children are exposed to those negative influences when drugs are delivered near schools, regardless of whether the dealers know they are within 1,000 feet of a school. In our view, requiring a knowing mental state with regard to the distance element would work against the obvious legislative purpose, in that it would create an incentive for drug dealers not to identify schools, and not to take into consideration their distance from them in engaging in their illegal activity."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 291 Or. App. 707 - State v. McMillin

2. “the legislature's obvious intent [was] to protect children from predatory drug dealers by enhancing the penalty for delivery in the vicinity of a school.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 291 Or. App. 707 - State v. McMillin

3. “clearly indicates a legislative intent to dispense with any culpable mental state requirement for the offense or for any material element thereof,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 238 Or. App. 86 - State v. Ruggles