119 Ohio App. 3d 560 - State v. Mulhollen’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2020
9 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. Nero · State v. Ishmail · State v. Ballard · State v. Stewart · 8 Ohio App. 3d 145 - State v. Mathews
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`* * * Crim. R. 11(F) does not provide for negotiation with respect to the punishment to be imposed but, instead, refers only to negotiated pleas `of guilty or no contest to one or more offenses charged or to one or more other or lesser offenses.' In other words, [Crim. R. 11(F)] does not contemplate that punishment will be a subject of plea bargaining, this being a matter either determined expressly by statute or lying with the sound discretion of the trial court.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Crim. R. 11(F) applies only to promises concerning what charges will be dismissed and what charges the guilty plea will cover.”
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.