14 Ohio App. 2d 59 - State v. Poffenbaugh’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2001
16 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 Escoe v. Zerbst · Frank v. Maryland · Scott v. State · Bryson v. United States · 68 Wash. 2d 882 - In RE MEMPA v. Rhay
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. Criminal procedure in Ohio is regulated entirely and exclusively by statute, and courts are without jurisdiction to recognize any legislative intent in a criminal procedural statute unless there is a clear statutory expression of such intent. “2. Under the provisions of Section 2947.061, Revised Code, a defendant who has filed a motion to suspend fur ther execution of sentence and requesting probation is not entitled to a hearing on the motion, as there is no clear statutory expresson in that section conferring upon the defendant the right to such a hearing. “3. The order of the court granting or denying such motion of a defendant under Section 2947.061, Revised Code, is not reviewable. Such section does not specifically provide that such an order is a final appealable order.””
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.