37 Or. App. 183 - State v. Pruett’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2012
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Connally v. General Construction Co. · Giaccio v. State of Pennsylvania · State v. Hodges · State of Oregon v. Wojahn · State v. Rogers
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are many types of pocketknives, with varying combinations of blades and sizes, handle styles and other features, designed for various uses and users. Some pocketknife features might have been designed primarily to make the knife more lethal when used against another person, but other features which would make one knife potentially more dangerous than another (such as the locking blade and the blade length of the knife involved here) are designed to make it useful for lawful purposes and possibly safer. The legislature is capable of clearly stating the scope of a prohibition against knives whose design creates unreasonable chances of unlawful use. ... A pocketknife which may be considered "ordinary" in one set of circumstances may be considered highly unusual or uncommon in other circumstances.[n.5]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It has two cutting blades, two screwdrivers, a can opener, a bottle opener, a wire stripper, scissors, an awl, a file, a Phillips screwdriver, tweezers, a toothpick (of imitation ivory!) and a 2½ inch long saw which can cut through a small tree limb in short order. It is seldom used as a knife. Ordinary? Illegal? Who knows? State v. Pruett, 37 Or.App. 183 , 586 P.2d 800, 802-03 (1978) (footnote omitted). I believe the appropriate remedy to be that fashioned by the Court of Appeals of Oregon in State v. Harris, 40 Or.App. 317 , 594 P.2d 1318 (1979). The court in Harris excised the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“from criminal prosecution], the author of this opinion carries with him in a pocket during every waking hour a device known as a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.