143 Ohio App. 3d 748 - State v. Ready’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably 145 Ohio Misc. 2d 24 - State v. Grevas (2007), 146 Ohio Misc. 2d 9 - State v. Daniel (2008)
49 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. Thompkins · State v. Jenks · 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, a court must examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average juror of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses * * * if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“against Mr. Bene. Thus, this portion of appellant's first assignment of error is also not well taken. {¶ 26} Appellant has failed to demonstrate that his robbery conviction was supported by insufficient evidence or was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is without merit. {¶ 27} Under his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it overruled his motion for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29. Appellant again argues the state failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that”
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.