132 Ohio App. 3d 348 - State v. Harman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he trial court did not err in finding that appellant had failed to demonstrate, pursuant to R.C. 2743.48 (A)(5), that the offense of which he was found guilty, including lesser included offenses, either was not committed by him or was not committed by any person. This court reversed appellant's conviction based on a denial of his right to confront and impeach witnesses. On April 3, 1992, appellant filed with this court a petition for a writ of prohibition asking us to direct the trial court to dismiss the indictment against him and to further order his discharge from custody. On April 5, 1992, this court filed a decision denying appellant's request and dismissing the petition. State v. Harman (Apr. 15, 1992), Mahoning App. No. 90 C.A. 76, unreported, 1992 WL 80071 . In that decision, this court also noted that its decision reversing appellant's conviction was not meant to hold that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. No finding was made by this court, or any other court, that the voluntary manslaughter offense, including lesser included offenses, either was not committed by appellant or was not committed by any person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gains v. Harman, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2004)