State v. Brewer’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
245 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 245 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably State v. Thomas (Slip Opinion) (2017), State v. Roseberry (2011)
245 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 Lockhart v. Nelson · Arnold v. City of Cleveland · State v. Lovejoy · State v. Gustafson
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 245 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While the former is in effect a finding ‘that the government has failed to prove its case’ against the defendant, the latter ‘implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,’ but is simply ‘a determination that [he] has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“We held [in State v. Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d 440 , 683 N.E.2d 1112 (1997)] that double-jeopardy principles barred retrial, because retrial under such circumstances [when the trial court sua sponte reopens the evidence to take judicial notice of a fact essential to the state’s case] “is what the Double Jeopardy Clause was intended to prevent. If the state fails to present sufficient evidence to prove every element of the crime, it should not get a second opportunity to do that which it failed to do the first time.” Id. The court of appeals, when reviewing the evidence for sufficiency, was constrained to use only the evidence that was properly admitted; because this evidence was insufficient, principles of double jeopardy barred a new trial. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Kareski“In this instance, pursuant to Lovejoy , Ohio’s Double Jeopardy Clause would offer greater protection from multiple prosecutions than the federal clause by narrowing the circumstances under which a defendant may be retried when the state fails to prove its case during the first go-around. Although we have historically found Ohio’s Double Jeopardy Clause to be coextensive with its federal counterpart, Ohio’s clause is not limited by the federal clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Kareski
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.