118 Ohio App. 3d 654 - State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2024
11 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 Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · New York v. Belton
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“without deference to the trial court, whether the trial court has applied the appropriate legal standard.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The record indicates that three police vehicles pulled into appellee’s driveway: a black and white twelve-passenger van marked with a light bar and a thirteen-inch diameter seal bearing the designation ‘Sheriff on the side and back, a marked sheriffs patrol car, and an unmarked police car. Úpon their arrival, seven to ten police officers, shouting ‘deputy sheriff, search warrant,’ ran to various positions around the house. The police officers included drug unit officers wearing ski masks and caps indicating ‘Deputy Sheriff,’ deputies of the sheriffs department wearing standard uniforms, and members of a ‘S.W.A.T.’ team wearing helmets, goggles and jackets with ‘Deputy Sheriff written across the chest with five-inch yellow letters. “The officers continued to shout their notice after they assumed their positions around appellee’s house. Deputy Sheriff Christopher Heist testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress that when he arrived at appellee’s home, he ‘pounded’ on the casement of an outer storm door ‘about as hard as [he] could hammer on it,’ while continuing to shout his notice ‘about as loud as [he] could,’ until all the members of the sheriffs department were in place around appellee’s home. Heist testified that after hearing no response from the occupants inside, he tried to open the storm door and found that it was locked. Heist, acting upon a ‘constructive refusal to admit,’ then applied a pry bar in an attempt to open the door. “The record indicates that duri”
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.