Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 OHIOST3D 312 - Perotti v. Stine

Perotti v. Stine’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably State v. Hare, 08 Caa 02 0005 (6-25-2008) (2008), State v. Melendez-Perez (2024)

33 state decisions

240200720102020decided

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 State v. Perry · 33 Ohio App. 3d 77 - Rowland v. Finkel · Scanlon v. Brunsman

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

  1. “State courts lack jurisdiction to determine a habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate of a federal prison. See, e.g., Ex Parte Bushnell (1858), 8 Ohio St. 599 , 601 ; Perotti v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Corp. Warden, Mahoning App. No. 05-MA-102, 2005-Ohio-3780 [ 2005 WL 1719961 ], ¶ 4 ("this state court lacks jurisdiction to determine a habeas petition filed by an inmate of a facility housing federal prisoners"); State v. Goist, Trumbull App. No. 2002-T-0136, 2003-Ohio-3549 [ 2003 WL 21517983 ], ¶ 25 (state common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over federal inmate housed in another state); R.C. 2725.03.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Estrada v. Larose
  2. “writ of error directed to a court for review of its own judgment and predicated upon alleged errors of fact.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. State v. Hare, 08 Caa 02 0005 (6-25-2008)

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.