146 Ohio App. 3d 427 - State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Reasons are different from findings. Findings are the specific criteria enumerated in [R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4)] which are necessary to justify [consecutive] sentences; reasons are the trial court's bases for its findings * * *.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Moore, Unpublished Decision (2-13-2004) · State v. Rouse, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2003)

2. “consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lariva, Unpublished Decision (11-8-2005)

3. “the [trial] court must note that it engaged in the analysis and that it varied from the minimum for at least one of the two sanctioned reasons.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Wright, Unpublished Decision (6-4-2004)