134 Ohio App. 3d 63 - State v. Marvin’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably 153 Ohio App. 3d 74 - State v. Vlad (2003), 144 Ohio App. 3d 615 - State v. Grodhaus (2001)
26 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 Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Yee v. Erie County Sheriff's Department · Howard v. Catholic Social Services of Cuyahoga County, Inc. · 141 Ohio St. 432 - In Re Kurtzhalz · 12 Ohio App. 3d 75 - State v. Hunter
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'prejudiced by the failure to hold a preliminary hearing.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““If the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that a community control sanction should be imposed * * *[,] [t]he court shall notify the offender that, if the conditions of the sanction are violated, * * * the court may impose a longer time under the same sanction, may impose a more restrictive sanction, or may impose a prison term on the offender and shall indicate the specific prison term that may be imposed as a sanction for the violation, as selected by the court from the range of prison terms for the offense pursuant to section 2929.14 of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Once Appellant perfected an appeal from his * * * sentence, any action by the trial court on the sentencing issue would be inconsistent with this court's jurisdiction to reverse, modify or affirm the judgment. Consequently, when the trial court held [an] additional hearing and `resentenced' Appellant in December 1998, it did so without jurisdiction and its judgment on the matter is void.”
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.