92 Or. App. 51 - State v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The uniform act separately penalizes delivery, possession with intent to deliver and possession. * * * The Oregon act separately penalizes delivery and possession, but not possession with intent to deliver. ORS 475.992(1),(4). "The fact that the Oregon legislature did not choose to make possession with intent to deliver a separate crime does not mean that it intended to punish possession of controlled substances intended for distribution as simple possession only. Under the uniform act, as well as under the federal statutory scheme, delivery and possession with intent to deliver are crimes punishable by the same penalties. The offense of simple possession is subject to substantially lesser penalties. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a), 844; 9 Uniform Laws Annot, § 401(a),(c). There is no indication that the Oregon legislature intended to punish an attempt to transfer a controlled substance other than as the completed transfer. It did so without enacting the distinct crime of possession with intent to deliver * * *.” Boyd, 756 P.2d at 1277-78 .”

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

2. “the actual, constructive or attempted transfer, other than by administering or dispensing, from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship.”

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

3. “amounts to evidence that [the defendant] had taken a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of delivery of a controlled substance.”

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