134 Ohio App. 3d 699 - In Re Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] court of appeals has discretionary authority pursuant to R.C. 2945.67 (A) to review substantive law rulings made in a criminal case which result in a judgment of acquittal so long as the judgment itself is not appealed.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ingram, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2006) · City of Cincinnati v. Davis, C-070838 (10-10-2008)

2. “In any criminal prosecution for a violation of this chapter . . . a laboratory report from the bureau of criminal identification and investigation, a laboratory operated by another law enforcement agency, or a laboratory established by or under the authority of an [accredited] institution of higher education that has its main campus in this state . . . primarily for the purpose of providing scientific services to law enforcement agencies and signed by the person performing the analysis, stating that the substance that is the basis of the alleged offense has been weighed and analyzed and stating the findings as to the content, weight, and identity of the substance and that it contains any amount of a controlled substance and the number and description of unit dosages, is prima-facie evidence of the *Page 7 content, identity, and weight or the existence and number of unit dosages of the substance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mathis, 23507 (5-16-2007)

3. “{¶ 6} In its sole assignment of error, the state argues that the common pleas court erred in admitting appellee's testimony as to statements one of the alleged victims made to him. Appellee's testimony implied that the alleged victim had a motive for fabricating allegations against appellee. According to the state, the court erroneously ruled that the alleged victim's statements were admissible under Evid.R. 801(D)(2) as admissions by a party-opponent. {¶ 7} Initially, we note that we have the authority to hear this appeal. As we have previously stated,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ingram, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2006)