Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 OHIOST3D 359 - State v. Bartholomew

State v. Bartholomew’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably State v. Colon (2010), State v. Perkins (2010)

28 state decisions

190200820102020decided

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 Rice v. CertainTeed Corp. · State v. Kreischer · Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless · State v. Didion · Rosette v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'another agency designated by the court.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “victim of the offender’s crime or any survivor of the victim, in an amount based on the victim’s economic loss.” This language cannot reasonably be interpreted to include either an insurance company or the Ohio Victims of Crime Compensation Program. In Bartholomew, the Supreme Court relied on the second sentence of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1),”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a trial court under the current version of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) retains the discretion to order that restitution be paid to certain third parties, namely, an adult probation department, the clerk of courts, or another agency designated by the court.”
    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.