138 Ohio App. 3d 562 - State v. Siegel’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably 181 Ohio App. 3d 269 - State v. Householder (2009), State v. Booth, C-070184 (3-21-2008) (2008)
29 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 State v. Fanning · State v. Mills · 86 Ohio App. 3d 37 - State v. Williams · 86 Ohio App. 3d 592 - State v. Guysinger · 73 Ohio App. 3d 486 - State v. Klein
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To overcome the inference that the defendant did not actually ingest anything during the observation period [because the officers saw nothing ingested], the defendant must show that he did, in fact, ingest some material during the twenty-minute period.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the subject was constantly within his gaze, but only that during the relevant period the subject was kept in such a location or condition or under such circumstances that one may reasonably infer that his ingestion of any material without the knowledge of the witness is unlikely or *Page 18 improbable.”
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.