1 Ohio St. 2d 28 - State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 93 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is a general rule that an appellate court will not consider any error which counsel for a party complaining of the trial court's judgment could have called but did not call to the trial court's attention at a time when such error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Pena, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2005) · State v. Vanhoose, 07ca765 (3-5-2008)

2. “In our opinion, protection of a defendant does not require giving him such a procedural advantage over the state. Cf. State v. Glaros (1960), 170 Ohio St. 471, 166 N.E.2d 379, where a defendant was not permitted to rely upon an error which counsel for the defendant could have called but did not call to the court's attention at a time when such error might have been avoided or corrected.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dennis, Unpublished Decision (4-25-2006) · Childs v. Cardwell

3. “Defendant contends that Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, requires this court to reverse his conviction because those suits were erroneously admitted in evidence against him. 20 "However, footnote 9 to the majority opinion in Mapp states: 21 "'As is always the case . . ., state procedural requirements governing assertion and pursuance of direct and collateral constitutional challenges to criminal prosecutions must be respected.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Childs v. Cardwell