142 Ohio App. 3d 274 - State v. McPherson’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Brooks (2004), 152 Ohio App. 3d 174 - Bragg v. Hatfield (2003)
37 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. Edmonson · 136 Ohio App. 3d 816 - State v. Brown · 106 Ohio App. 3d 389 - Woods v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc. · 122 Ohio App. 3d 237 - Lucas County Auditor v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services · 136 Ohio App. 3d 367 - State v. Carter
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be within the range of prison terms available for the offense for which the sanction that was violated was imposed and shall not exceed the prison term specified in the notice provided to the offender at the sentencing hearing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““If the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that a community control sanction should be imposed * * *[,] [t]he court shall notify the offender that, if the conditions of the sanction are violated, * * * the court may impose a longer time under the same sanction, may impose a more restrictive sanction, or may impose a prison term on the offender and shall indicate the specific prison term that may be imposed as a sanction for the violation, as selected by the court from the range of prison terms for the offense pursuant to section 2929.14 of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“and set the child support obligation at $1,059 per month. 1 This appeal followed. I {¶ 5} Appellant argues in her first assignment of error that the trial court erred by not considering appellee's severance pay in calculating child support. We agree, albeit reluctantly. 2 {¶ 6} The provisions of R.C. 3109.01 (C)(7) expressly include”
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.