State v. Kaplowitz’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2022
17 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 140 Ohio App. 3d 235 - State v. Kinder · State v. Newman
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Accordingly, we hold that R.C. 1.58(B) does not apply to give a criminal defendant the benefit of a reduced sentence if, by applying it, the court alters the nature of the offense, including specifications to which the defendant pled guilty or of which he Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00284 5 was found guilty. State v. Kinder (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 235 , 746 N.E.2d 1205 , disapproved.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment for any offense is reduced by a reenactment or amendment of a statute, the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, if not already imposed, shall be imposed according to the statute as amended.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“R.C. 1.58(B) identifies which law to apply when a statute is amended after the commission of a crime but before sentence is imposed[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Simmons · State v. Kuhn
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.