Doelker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Arlen v. State (1980), 61 Ohio App. 2d 14 - Zurow v. City of Cleveland (1978)
26 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 Spies v. United States · United States v. Murdock · Rheb v. Bar Ass'n of Baltimore · Murrill v. State Board of Accountancy · United States v. Vitiello
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although Mrs. Doelker may have done something that would represent commission of ‘an act discreditable to the profession,’ the record fails to disclose this. The only evidence offered against her in the record is a certified copy of her conviction under Section 7203, Title 26, U.S.Code, for willfully failing to file a federal income tax return that she should have filed in the year 1955. * * * Although the record does indicate that Mrs. Doelker acquiesced in ‘all members of the board’ having ‘seen the various briefs that were filed in the [federal] Court of Appeals’ and that she apparently agreed that ‘they set forth the facts quite clearly,’ there are no copies of those briefs in the record that was certified by the board to the Common Pleas Court. “The opinion of the federal Court of Appeals is reported in United States v. Doelker [C.A. 6, 1964], 327 F.2d 343 . It indicates that evidence was probably presented at Mrs. Doelker’s trial which, if it had been presented in this proceeding, might have supported disciplinary action against her by the accountancy board. “However, Section 119.12, Revised Code, authorizes a Common Pleas Court, on an appeal from an order of an agency revoking a license, to affirm that order of the agency only ‘if it finds, upon consideration of the entire record and such additional evidence as the court has admitted, that the order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law.’ This means that such evide”
2 later decisions 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.