145 Ohio St. 552 - State v. Derighter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 state decisions

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Hence, it is clear that the purpose of a bill of particulars is not to disclose the state’s evidence but simply to state specifically the nature of the offense charged. When this is stated in the indictment the accused is entitled to no bill of particulars * *”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 14 Ohio App. 2d 76 - State v. Cron · 29 Ohio App. 2d 206 - State v. Clay

2. “The acts and declarations of a conspirator are admissible against a coconspirator when they are made during the pendency of the wrongful act, and this includes not only the perpetration of the offense, but also its subsequent concealment. The theory for the admission of such evidence is that persons who conspire to commit a crime, and who do commit a crime, are as much concerned, after the crime, with their freedom from apprehension, as they were concerned, before the crime, with its commission; the conspiracy to commit the crime devolves after the commission thereof into a conspiracy to avoid arrest and implication.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Flannery, Unpublished Decision (4-1-2005)

3. “* * * [T]he single fact that the crimes already had been committed does not render this evidence inadmissible if the acts and declarations occurred during the pendency of the unlawful enterprise and in furtherance of the common object.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Flannery, Unpublished Decision (4-1-2005)