132 Ohio App. 3d 496 - In Re Royal’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably In Re Graham (2002), 147 Ohio App. 3d 31 - In Re Holcomb (2002)
35 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 Gault · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories · Schall v. Martin · State v. Ballard
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“{¶ 15} “The best method for obtaining compliance with Juv.R. 29(D) is for a court to use the language of the rule, ‘ * * * carefully tailored to the child’s level of understanding, stopping after each right and asking whether the child understands the right and knows that he is waiving it by entering an admission.’ In re Miller, 119 Ohio App.3d at 58 [ 694 N.E.2d 500 ], citing State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 [ 20 O.O.3d 397 ], 423 N.E.2d 115 . If the juvenile court fails to substantially comply mth Juv.R. 29(D), the adjudication must be reversed so that the minor ‘ * * * may plead anew. ’ In re Christopher R. [ (1995) ], 101 Ohio App.3d [245] at 248 [ 655 N.E.2d 280 ], quoting In re Meyer (Jan. 15, 1992), Hamilton App. Nos. C-910292, C-910404, unreported [ 1992 WL 5843 ].” (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) The continuing jurisdiction of the court shall be invoked by motion filed in the original proceeding, notice of which shall be served in the manner provided for the service of process. {¶ 58} "(B) The court shall not revoke probation except after a hearing at which the child shall be present and apprised of the grounds on which revocation is proposed. The parties shall have the right to counsel and the right to appointed counsel where entitled pursuant to Juv.R. 4(A). Probation shall not be revoked except upon a finding that the child has violated a condition of probation of which the child had, pursuant to *Page 14 Juv.R. 34(C), been notified.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“{¶ 7} “The court may refuse to accept an admission and shall not accept an admission without addressing the party personally and determining both of the following: {¶ 8} “(1) The party is making the admission voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the allegations and the consequences of the admission; {¶ 9} “(2) The party understands that by entering an admission the party is waiving the right to challenge the witnesses and evidence against the party, to remain silent, and to introduce evidence at the adjudicatory hearing.””
3 later decisions 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.