Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 Ohio App. 3d 591 - State v. Kehoe

133 Ohio App. 3d 591 - State v. Kehoe’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. Marshall (2010), State v. Moore (2005)

56 state decisions

2801999200020102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Thompkins · State v. Jenks · 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · State v. Bradley

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

  1. “[i]f the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “Lay opinion, inferences, impressions or conclusions are therefore admissible if they are those that a rational person would form on the basis of the observed facts and if they assist the jury in understanding the testimony or delineating a fact in issue. Id.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Furthermore, the party challenging the testimony must demonstrate that, if the trial court did abuse its discretion, such abuse `materially prejudiced the objecting party.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.