101 Ohio App. 3d 334 - State v. Sakr’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2011
9 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 State v. Hensley · People v. Lucero
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While we hold that Sakr is a public servant because he is an employee of a public institution, we cannot, however, accept the conclusion the state urges upon us — that Sakr is a public servant guilty of ‘misconduct in office’[.] We believe that by employing the term ‘misconduct in office,’ the legislature intended that, in order for the statute of limitations to be tolled, * * * the offense must involve such a palpable nexus between the auspices of the office and the wrongdoing that it constitutes an offense against justice and public administration as codified in R.C. Chapter 2921 * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“offense involving misconduct in office by a public servant as defined in (section) 2921.01 of the Ohio Revised Code.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Offenses Against Justice and Public Administration.”
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.