108 Ohio App. 3d 598 - State v. Mays’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

107 state decisions

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

1. “evidence. State v. Burson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 157 , 158 , 67 O.O.2d 174 , 311 N.E.2d 526 . {¶ 109} The admission and exclusion of evidence are within the broad discretion of the trial court. State v. Mays (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 598 , 617 , 671 N.E.2d 553 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Greene · State v. Moore, 06-Ma-15 (3-12-2008)

2. “(C) A person against whom a charge of felony is pending: {¶ 36} "* * * {¶ 37} "(2) Shall be brought to trial within two hundred seventy days after his arrest. {¶ 38} "* * * {¶ 39} "(E) For purposes of computing time under divisions (A), (B), (C)(2), and (D) of this section, each day during which the accused is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge shall be counted as three days. This division does not apply for purposes of computing time under division (C)(1) of this section.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stevens, Unpublished Decision (11-9-2006) · State v. Freeman, Unpublished Decision (7-7-2005)

3. “A reviewing court should be slow to interfere unless the court has clearly abused its discretion and a party has been materially prejudiced thereby.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Moore, 06-Ma-15 (3-12-2008) · State v. Ferrell, Unpublished Decision (2-9-2004)