Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 364 Or. 105 - State v. Warren

State v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries · State v. Gaines · State v. Davis · State v. Robertson · State v. Laundy

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

  1. “"(1) A charging instrument must charge but one offense, and in one form only, except that: "(a) Where the offense may be committed by the use of different means, the charging instrument may allege the means in the alternative. "(b) Two or more offenses may be charged in the same charging instrument in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are alleged to have been committed by the same person or persons and are: "(A) Of the same or similar character; * "(B) Based on the same act or transaction; or "(C) Based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “when it later became apparent that the evidence did not support the allegation that charges were part of the * same act or transaction, trial court was required to address the improper joinder). Here, although the indictment did not track the statutory language, it includes factual allegations and cross-references among the charges that are sufficient to establish compliance with the joinder statute. First, the allegations of the indictment connect all of defendant's August crimes to each other as part of a common scheme or plan. The indictment alleges that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “can allege the basis for joinder either 'in the language of the joinder statute [ ORS 132.560(1)(b) ] or by alleging facts sufficient to establish compliance with the joinder statute.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.