111 Ohio App. 3d 142 - State v. Medcalf’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
615 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 615 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 126 Ohio App. 3d 95 - State v. Lloyd (1998), 140 Ohio App. 3d 517 - State v. Petitjean (2000)
615 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 Beck v. State of Ohio · State v. Mills · 86 Ohio App. 3d 592 - State v. Guysinger · 73 Ohio App. 3d 486 - State v. Klein · City of Xenia v. Wallace
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 615 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the court must examine whether, at the moment of the arrest, the officer had knowledge from a reasonably trustworthy source of facts and circumstances sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence of alcohol.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Probable cause exists where there is a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious person in the belief that an individual is guilty of the offense with which he or she is charged.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[H]owever, because the prohibited amount of blood alcohol in an underage driver is so minimal, an arresting officer must look for more subtle evidence of drinking, and evidence of only very slight impairment of performance. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that an officer must look for less obvious indicators of alcohol consumption when assessing an underage drinking driver, but not because there is a `different' or `lesser' probable cause standard to satisfy. Rather, we believe that the indicators of two hundredths of a gram by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath are more subtle than the indicators of one tenth of a gram by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath. See R.C. 4511.19 (A)(3); [R.C. 4511.19 (B)(2).] Thus, the facts which constitute probable cause to arrest an underage driver are different from the facts necessary to constitute probable cause to arrest an adult driver.”
1 later decision 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.