Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 Ohio App. 3d 236 - State v. Fish

104 Ohio App. 3d 236 - State v. Fish’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

466
cited by 466 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

466 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 466 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 139 Ohio App. 3d 895 - State v. Cuthbertson (2000), 141 Ohio App. 3d 551 - State v. Griffin (2001)

466 state decisions

18501995200020102020decided

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 68 Ohio App. 2d 211 - State v. Peterseim · State v. Tate · State ex rel. Jackson v. Dallman · 91 Ohio App. 3d 366 - State v. Cloud · 75 Ohio App. 3d 436 - State v. Bekesz

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

  1. “(1) whether the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) whether the accused was given a full Crim.R. 11 hearing before entering the plea, (3) whether a full hearing was held on the motion, (4) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion, (5) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time, (6) whether the motion sets out specific reasons for the withdrawal, (7) whether the accused understood the nature of the charges and possible penalties, (8) whether the accused was perhaps not guilty of or had a complete defense to the charge or charges, and (9) whether the state is prejudiced by withdrawal of the plea.”
    29 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “This court thus determined that at least one standard is lack of prejudice to the prosecution * * * We believe that the lack of prejudice is simply one factor, albeit an extremely important factor, in the analysis of whether such a motion should be granted, and our decision in Davis should not be read to the contrary.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the myriad pronouncements of the appellate courts that these motions should be `liberally and freely' granted lose some meaning, if the standard is `abuse of discretion' with no guidelines whatever.”
    3 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.