State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Bates (2008), State v. Polus (Slip Opinion) (2016)
28 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. Foster · State v. Saxon · Portage County Board of Commissioners v. City of Akron · 99 Ohio St. 3d 430 - State ex rel. Van Dyke v. Public Employees Retirement Board
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]fter the sentencing court imposes a separate prison term for each conviction, it may exercise its discretion to determine whether consecutive sentences are appropriate based upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case. See State v. Saxon , 109 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2006-Ohio-1245 , 846 N.E.2d 824 , ¶ 9; State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , paragraph seven of the syllabus, ¶ 100 (Trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences').”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he plain language of R.C. 2929.13 (F) requires the sentencing court to impose a prison term for certain serious offenses and limits that court's discretion to reduce that term pursuant to R.C. 2929.20 (judicial release), R.C. 2967.193 (deduction for participation in certain prison programs), or any other provision of R.C. Chapter 2967 or 5120 (pardon, parole, probation), except in certain enumerated circumstances. The word `consecutive' does not appear in the statute. {¶ 19} "As R.C. 2929.14 (D) and (E) and 2929.41 (B)(1) demonstrate, when the legislature intends a sentencing court to impose multiple sentences consecutively, it explicitly states that intention. However, while R.C. 2929.13 (F) reveals the intent of the legislature that a sentencing court impose mandatory prison terms for the enumerated offenses, our review of that statute reveals no language demonstrating any legislative intent to require a sentencing court to impose those terms consecutively to each other or to any other sentence. * * *”
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.