State v. Echols’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

136 state decisions

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

1. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. * * *”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Webster, C-070027 (4-4-2008) · State v. Wagner, Unpublished Decision (7-26-2004)

2. “[r]eferences to studies by other experts in a field do not make an expert's testimony inadmissible as a learned treatise. `[I]t is perfectly proper for an expert to rely upon `facts or data * * * perceived by him,' Evid.R. 703, as well as to draw upon knowledge gained from other experts in the field, whether this knowledge was communicated orally or in writing. This information forms the `scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge' which qualifies the witness as an expert. Evid.R. 702.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Muhleka, Unpublished Decision (4-9-2004) · Compher v. Kroger, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2005)

3. ““At issue in this case is whether there was such a lack of evidence of theft or attempted theft to require acquittal. We agree with Echols that the testimony of the victim [Marie Richey] standing alone was insufficient for reasonable minds to reach different conclusions as to whether an attempted theft had occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 146 Ohio App. 3d 81 - State v. Echols