Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 Ohio App. 3d 37 - State v. Johnson

105 Ohio App. 3d 37 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2025

15 state decisions

601995200020102020decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Delaware v. Prouse · State v. Fanning · State v. Bobo · 86 Ohio App. 3d 37 - State v. Williams

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

  1. “[I]n interpreting R.C. 4511.33 , the court in State v. Gullett (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 138 , 144-145 , 604 N.E.2d 176 , 180-81 , concluded that while a mere crossing of the right edge line technically constitutes a marked-lane violation, it does not follow that every crossing of the edge line, regardless of circumstances, constitutionally justifies a stop of the vehicle. In Gullett , the court upheld a motion to suppress evidence in connection with a DUI charge where the defendant was stopped for twice crossing the right-edge line, and the evidence failed to show how long or how far the defendant crossed the line or any other evidence of erratic driving. Id. at 145 , 604 N.E.2d at 181 . As Gullett indicates, where a driver commits only a de minimis marked-lanes violation, some other evidence to suggest impairment is needed before an officer is justified in stopping the vehicle.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] vehicle * * * shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic * * *”
    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.