119 Ohio App. 3d 146 - State v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
December 2019
most recently cited
21 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 6 Ohio St. 3d 91 - State v. Davis · 80 Ohio App. 3d 146 - State v. Furlow · 103 Ohio App. 3d 425 - State v. Habtemariam
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the fear of the alleged victim was of such a nature as in reason and common experience is likely to induce a person to part with property against his will and temporarily suspend his power to exercise his will by virtue of the influence of the terror impressed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The test for force or threat of force is objective and relies on the totality of the circumstances. State v. Habtemariam (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 425 , 659 N.E.2d 850 . R.C. 2901.01 (A) defines `force or threat of force' as any violence, compulsion, or constraint physically exerted or threatened to be exerted by any means upon a person or thing. This court has further limited this definition of force, however, by ruling that the necessary violence, compulsion, constraint or threat thereof must be of a type that exacts or potentially exacts harm to a person. State v. Furlow (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 146 , 608 N.E.2d 1112 . Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in State v. Davis (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 91 , 6 OBR 131, 451 N.E.2d 772 , that the threat of violence, compulsion, or constraint need not be direct and explicit; rather, it can be implied from the perpetrator's demeanor and tone of voice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because the test is objective, proof of the victim's fear and apprehension is not necessary to establish the force element when it is possible for the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant's statements, actions, and demeanor had that purpose and effect.”
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.