Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 Ohio App. 3d 726 - In Re Green

101 Ohio App. 3d 726 - In Re Green’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably 84 Ohio St. 3d 165 - State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (1998), DuBose v. McGuffey (Slip Opinion) (2022)

28 state decisions

1001995200020102020decided

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 Stack v. Boyle · Bland v. Holden · Jenkins v. Billy · 7 Ohio App. 3d 143 - In Re Gentry · State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon

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

  1. ““The principles governing habeas corpus in these matters are well established. Under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions, ‘excessive bail shall not be required.’ The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial. Crim.R. 46(A); Bland v. Holden (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 238 , 50 O.O.2d 477 , 257 N. E.2d 397 . In Ohio the writ of habeas corpus protects the right to reasonable bail. In re Gentry (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 143 , 7 OBR 187, 454 N.E.2d 987 . A person charged with the commission of a bailable offense cannot be required to furnish bail in an excessive or unreasonable amount. In re Lonardo (1949), 86 Ohio App. 289 , 41 O.O. 313 , 89 N.E.2d 502 . Indeed, bail set at an unreasonable amount violates the constitutional guarantees. Stack v. Boyle (1951), 342 U.S. 1 , 72 S.Ct. 1 , 96 L.Ed. 3 . Pursuant to Crim.R. 46, in determining what is reasonable bail, the trial court must weigh various factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence, the accused’s history of flight or failure to appear at court proceedings, his ties to the community, including his family, financial resources and employment, and his character and mental condition. After weighing these factors, the trial judge sets the amount of bail within his sound discretion. In a habeas corpus action to contest the reasonableness of bond, this court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re Gentry; Jenkins v. Billy (1989), 43 Oh”
    2 later decisions 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.