State v. Tooley’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Williams (2008), 119 Ohio St. 3d 375 - State v. Brady (2008)
66 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 State v. Jenks · Roth v. United States · Miller v. California · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · New York v. Ferber
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * R.C. 2907.322 (B)(3) does not equate virtual child pornography, which is protected under the First Amendment, with actual child pornography, which is not protected. Courts of appeals other than the Eleventh District have determined that R.C. 2907.322 is different from the CPPA provisions because the Ohio statute has never been interpreted to prohibit child pornography that is created without the use of real *Page 5 children. The permissive inference under R.C.2907.322(B)(3) is not an addition to the definition of `child pornography,' but is merely an evidentiary tool. * * * {¶ 13} "* * * {¶ 14} "* * * R.C. 2907.322 (B)(3) merely permits, and does not require, a fact-finder to infer from circumstantial evidence the age of the person in the image. The state still must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt, including that a real child is depicted, to support a conviction for possession of child pornography under R.C. 2907.322.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[ Free Speech Coalition ] did not impose a heightened evidentiary burden on the state to specifically identify the child or to use expert testimony to prove that the image contains a real child.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Belicka unlawfully did possess or view material or a performance that shows a minor who is not the said * * * Belicka's child or ward in a state of nudity[.]”
2 later decisions 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.