14 Ohio App. 3d 63 - State v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2023
15 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 Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · 143 Ohio St. 329 - Belden v. Union Central Life Ins. · 57 Ill. 2d 170 - City of Waukegan v. Pollution Control Board · 148 Ohio St. 389 - Weber v. Board of Health · Burger Brewing Co. v. Thomas
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(B) In making a determination to add, remove, or transfer pursuant to division (A) of this section, the board shall consider the following: (1) The actual or relative potential for abuse; (2) The scientific evidence of the pharmacological effect of the substance, if known; (3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the substance; (4) The history and current pattern of abuse; (5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse; (6) The risk to the public health; (7) The potential of the substance to produce psychic or physiological dependence liability; (8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frye“Giving consideration to the evils to be remedied by the drug control legislation here considered, this effectively requires ongoing adjustments with the marketing of new drugs and the increased knowledge of the nature of existing drugs with a recognition that the General Assembly is not in continuous session, we hold the legislative standards constitutionally adequate in order that the will of the General Assembly, not the State Board of Pharmacy, be implemented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frye“R.C. 3719.44(A)(1) expressly authorizes the board to add a previously unscheduled compound , mixture , preparation or substance to any schedule. Nowhere in the legislative grant did the General Assembly limit or otherwise direct where, in an existing schedule, a new substance should be placed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frye
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.