128 Ohio App. 3d 134 - State v. Ridenour’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2020
8 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 Payne v. Tennessee · State v. Fautenberry
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he failure of any person or entity to provide a right, privilege, or notice to a victim under this chapter does not constitute grounds for declaring a mistrial Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0009 5 or a new trial, for setting aside a conviction, sentence, or adjudication * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dunkle“is not for the benefit of the defendant but rather to be sure the court considers the impact of causing physical harm upon the victim when the court imposes * * * sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dunkle“before imposing sentence upon a defendant * * * for the commission of a crime * * *, the court shall permit the victim of the crime to make a statement.”
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.