118 Ohio App. 3d 771 - State v. Suber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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.

1. “Although the weapon was not in a position to be detected by ordinary observation (i.e., if the police officers had stopped the car and appellant had remained in the car and had the officers approached the vehicle and spoken to appellant through the driver's side window), the weapon was in plain view when the officers looked through the windows in a nonordinary fashion. Based upon the description given to the police, the police had reason to believe that there was a weapon in appellant's car. Without opening the doors to the car, the police officers were able to see a weapon that would not have been immediately apparent to them had they looked into the car only through the front windows of either the driver or the passenger sides.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gainer, Unpublished Decision (5-13-2004) · State v. Mellot, Unpublished Decision (3-18-2005)

2. “out of sight or so hidden that it cannot be seen by ordinary observation by others near enough to see it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mellot, Unpublished Decision (3-18-2005)

3. “a single gun can be both `in plain view' for purposes of search and seizure, and "concealed”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gainer, Unpublished Decision (5-13-2004)