11 Ohio App. 3d 97 - State v. Ebright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 21 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An inference based solely and entirely upon another inference, unsupported by any additional fact or another inference from other facts, is an inference on an inference and may not be indulged in by a jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hamilton · 2 Ohio App. Unrep. 527 - State v. Cassidy

2. “an inference which is based in part upon an inference and in part upon facts is a parallel inference and permissible, if reasonable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Butler, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2005) · 2 Ohio App. Unrep. 527 - State v. Cassidy

3. “'The only inferences of fact which the law recognizes are immediate inferences from facts proved, but a given state of facts may give rise to two or more inferences, and in such case one inference is not built upon another but each is drawn separately from the same facts.' McDougall v. Glenn Cartage Co. (1959), 169 Ohio St. 522 [9 0.0.2d 12], paragraph two of the syllabus. "The principle underlying the rule is that, where an inference is based solely and entirely upon another inference, its foundation is so insecure that reliance upon the second inference would stretch credulity beyond its permissible bounds and result in an inferred fact which in reality is speculative, raising merely a conjecture or possibility.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Ohio App. Unrep. 527 - State v. Cassidy