115 Ohio App. 3d 24 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2015
20 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. Long · State v. Awan · State v. Logan · State v. Blankenship · State v. Thomas
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which is otherwise admissible and which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he courts of this state have generally held that testimony concerning the basis or reason for an officer's actions during an investigation is not considered hearsay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he purpose of the testimony was not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but merely to explain the mind-set of the officers * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.