Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 Ohio App. 3d 436 - State v. Hennessee

13 Ohio App. 3d 436 - State v. Hennessee’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2013

19 state decisions

901984199020002010decided

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 State v. Unger · City of Kettering v. Hollen · Detling v. Chockley · 1 Ohio St. 2d 28 - State v. Davis · 47 Ohio App. 2d 181 - State v. Moore

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

  1. “`[a] licensed driver is charged with knowledge that driving while under the influence is against the law, and creates a substantial risk to himself and others.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(C) A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““* * * In Chockley the court held a defendant in a civil case could not be held liable for punitive damages, although defendant was intoxicated while driving, without other evidence of actual malice. Appellant asserts this is the standard ‘recklessness’ must meet for a conviction under R.C. 2903.06(A). We disagree. “Under prior law, R.C. 4511.181, a conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide was dependent upon a violation of the law regarding drunk driving, reckless operation or drag racing. None is needed under the current provision, R.C. 2903.06; therefore, the realm of violations under this section has expanded to include all reckless conduct as defined in R.C. 2901.22(C). * *”
    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.