102 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Bayer’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably State v. Donkers (2007), 108 Ohio App. 3d 580 - State v. Collie (1996)
46 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 In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Offutt v. United States · 54 Ohio St. 2d 440 - Beer v. Griffith · 17 Ohio App. 3d 216 - City of Garfield Heights v. Brewer · 69 Ohio App. 3d 638 - State v. Doane
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Neither aggravated menacing nor menacing requires that the offender be able to carry out his threat or even believe himself capable of carrying it out. It is sufficient if the offender knowingly causes the victim to believe the offender will carry his threat into execution. The rationale for this is that regardless of whether the offender is bluffing or in earnest the victim may be impelled to violence to counter what he believes to be a real threat. If the victim of a threat is not in fact intimidated, the offender's conduct would constitute attempted menacing if his purpose was to intimidate or he knew that his conduct would probably intimidate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The term `biased or prejudiced,' when used in reference to a judge before whom a cause is pending implies a hostile feeling or spirit of ill will or undue friendship or favoritism toward one of the litigants or his attorney, with the formation of a fixed anticipatory judgment on the part of the judge, as contradistinguished from an open state of mind which will be governed by the law and the facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“`It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.' * * *. {¶ 20}”
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.