143 Ohio App. 3d 232 - State v. High’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 162 Ohio App. 3d 730 - State v. Riley (2005), 172 Ohio App. 3d 666 - State v. Masters (2007)
2 federal appellate · 87 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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Thompkins · 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · State v. Dehass · Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our standard of review of a speedy trial issue is to count the days of delay chargeable to either side and determine whether the case was tried within the time limits set by R.C. 2945.71 . Oregon v. Kohne (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 179 , 180 , 690 N.E.2d 66 , 67 ; State v. DePue (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 513 , 516 , 645 N.E.2d 745 , 746-747 . Our review of the trial court's decision regarding a motion to dismiss *Page 26 based upon a violation of the speedy trial provisions involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v. McDonald (June 30, 1999), Mahoning App. Nos. 97 C.A. 146 and 97 C.A. 148. Due deference must be given to the trial court's findings of fact if supported by competent, credible evidence. Id. However, we must independently review whether the trial court properly applied the law to the facts of the case. Id. Furthermore, when reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy trial claim, an appellate court must strictly construe the relevant statutes against the state. Id., citing Brecksville v. Cook (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 53 , 57 , 661 N.E.2d 706 , 708-709.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ny period of delay necessitated by reason of a plea in bar or abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted by the accused,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the period of any reasonable continuance granted other than upon the accused's own motion.”
3 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.