Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 Ohio App. 3d 77 - State v. Mathis

134 Ohio App. 3d 77 - State v. Mathis’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

75 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Lee, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2005) (2005), State v. Carson, 07ap-492 (11-29-2007) (2007)

75 state decisions

3801999200020102020decided

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 State v. Schiebel · 19 Ohio App. 3d 141 - State v. Walden · 56 Ohio App. 2d 37 - State v. Kiraly · 3 Ohio App. 3d 445 - State v. Barber

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

  1. “Clear and convincing proof that the defendant was 'unavoidably prevented' from filing 'requires more than a mere allegation that a defendant has been unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence he seeks to introduce as support for a new trial.'”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' is defined as that measure or degree of proof that is more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “by clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of the evidence upon which he must rely, such motion shall be filed within seven days from an order of the court finding that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the one hundred twenty day period.”
    4 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.