102 Ohio App. 3d 243 - State v. Lang’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2012
16 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 United States v. Olano · North Carolina v. Pearce · State v. Dehass · Tibbs v. Florida · State v. Edwards
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the same conduct by the defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“prejudicial plain error to impose multiple sentences, even if the sentences are made to run concurrently, for allied offenses of similar import. * * * The prejudice arises from a criminal record that reveals convictions for two felonies when, in fact, the defendant has committed only one criminal act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.