144 Ohio App. 3d 396 - State v. Santini’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably State v. Driver, Unpublished Decision (1-31-2006) (2006), State v. Tisdale, 06 Co 29 (12-11-2007) (2007)
27 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Barker v. Wingo · Edwards v. Arizona · Colorado v. Connelly · Colorado v. Spring
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Looking first to the language of the statute itself, we note that it does not state merely that all motions filed by the accused extend the try-by date for the accused. Rather, R.C. 2945.72 (E) states that a motion extends the statutory time for trial `for any period of delay necessitated' by reason of the filing of the motion. Therefore, it is clear to us that the legislature intended that only the motions or proceedings initiated by the accused that cause a delay operate to extend the time for trial. Moreover, we find support for such a conclusion from the drafting committee's comment relative to R.C. 2945.72 wherein the committee noted: `In each of the above cases [i.e. 2945.72(A) through (H) ] the applicable time limit is not tolled absolutely, but merely extended by the time necessary in light of the reason for the delay.' See State v. Arrizola (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 72 , 75 , 606 N.E.2d 1020 , 1021-1022.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Accordingly, when questioning occurs between law enforcement officials and a defendant after the defendant has exercised his or her right to counsel, the relevant inquiry is whether law enforcement officials were responsible for initiating the questioning or whether the defendant was responsible.”
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.