132 Ohio App. 3d 268 - State v. Roughton’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2025
19 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Bagley · Kyles v. Whitley · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do conclude that [the State] showed a woeful lack of comprehension of the purpose behind the discovery rules in this state: to provide full disclosure of evidence to the accused before trial so that due process is served. The trial court made appropriate orders in each instance to ensure that appellant's right to a fair trial was preserved”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While we find the repeated failure to make full, timely disclosure of evidence deplorable, we cannot conclude that the purpose behind the behavior was a desire to force a mistrial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown“once the state agreed, through stipulation, to provide appellant with the summary [of an inmate witness's statement], it had an obligation to provide a complete summary.”
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.