134 Ohio App. 3d 730 - State v. Halliwell’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 145 Ohio App. 3d 318 - State v. Byrd (2001), State v. Clay (2018)
59 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 40 Ohio St. 3d 19 - State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris · 71 Ohio App. 3d 444 - State v. Sklenar · 39 Ohio St. 3d 140 - State ex rel. Manning v. Montgomery · 66 Ohio App. 3d 654 - State v. Roberts · 118 Ohio App. 3d 184 - State v. Schulte
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.21 of the Revised Code, a court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the period prescribed in division (A) of that section ... unless both of the following apply: (1) Either of the following applies: (a) The petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to present the claim for relief. (b) Subsequent to the period prescribed in division (A)(2) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code ... the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner’s situation, and the petition asserts a claim based on that right. (2) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted or, if the claim challenges a sentence of death that, but for constitutional error at the sentencing hearing, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner eligible for the death sentence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense * * *”
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.