103 Ohio App. 3d 388 - State v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2021
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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Jenks · State v. Dehass · State v. Long · United States v. Harriss
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendant is charged in count one with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Before you can find the defendant guilty of this charge you must find that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that between the first day of September, 1992, and the 2nd day of January, 1996, that the defendant, while employed by or associated with an enterprise, did conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity. Enterprise includes any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited partnership, corporation, trust, union, government agency, or other legal entity, or any organization, association, or group of persons associated in fact although not a legal entity. Enterprise includes illicit as well as licit enterprises. The enterprise in this case is alleged to be a group of persons associated in fact for the purpose of theft and dealing in stolen property. Corrupt activity. Corrupt activity includes engaging in, attempting to engage in, conspiring to engage in, or soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to engage in receiving stolen property or theft when the proceeds of any combination of these offenses exceeds five hundred dollars. Pattern of corrupt activity means two or more incidents of corrupt activity that are related to the affairs of the same enterprise, are not isolated, and are not so closely related to each other and connected in time and place that they constitute a single event. At least one of the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lemaster v. Ohio“there existed * * * a 'continuing relationship' between appellant and the Fund * * *, which relationship facilitated her theft offenses regardless of the name by which she called herself when committing the offenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mahone“was not literally an 'employee' of the Fund, her theft offenses were committed and facilitated by her in her 'same * * * relationship,' that of 'independent contractor,' 'to another,' * * * the Fund.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mahone
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.