State v. Polick

Decided February 27, 1995

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1995-02-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“exceed[s] the amount that the offender is or will be able to pay * * * without undue hardship to the offender or the offender's dependents.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Boyle, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2004)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-02-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 200 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 110 Ohio App. 3d 264 - State v. Patterson (1996), 115 Ohio App. 3d 313 - State v. Knox (1996)

200 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*433 Stephenson, Judge,

¶1 concurring.

¶2 I concur in the majority judgment and opinion with regard to the first assignment of error. I also concur in the majority judgment insofar as it sustains the second assignment of error and remands this action for further consideration. However, I do so on the basis that my review of the transcript shows no indication that the lower court ever inquired as to whether the fines imposed below “exceeds the amount which the offender is or will be able to pay … without undue hardship to himself or his dependents,” as required by R.C. 2929.22(F).