148 Ohio App. 3d 473 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2024
17 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 Grayned v. City of Rockford · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Coates v. City of Cincinnati · Gooding v. Wilson · Osborne v. Ohio
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“{¶ 24} “(a) A felony or an act committed by a juvenile that would be a felony if committed by an adult; {¶ 25} “(b) An offense of violence or an act committed by a juvenile that would be an offense of violence if committed by an adult; {¶ 26} “(c) A violation of section 2907.04 [unlawful sexual conduct with a minor], 2909.06 [criminal damaging or endangering], 2911.211 [aggravated trespass], 2917.04 [failure to disperse], 2919.23 [interference with custody], or 2919.24 of the Revised Code [contributing to unruliness or delinquency of a child], section 2921.04 [intimidation of attorney, victim, or witness in criminal case] or 2923.16 of the Revised Code [improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle], section 2925.03 of the Revised Code [trafficking in drugs] if the offense is trafficking in marihuana, or section 2927.12 of the Revised Code [ethnic intimidation].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[R.C. 2923.42 ] requires more than just the knowledge of criminal conduct. A person charged with participating in criminal gang activity must be found to actively participate with knowledge that the criminal gang engages in or has engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity and must purposively promote, further, or assist any criminal conduct, as such is defined in R.C. 2923.41 (C), or shall purposely commit or engage in any act that constitutes criminal conduct as defined by that same section. R.C. 2923.41 (B)(2) then states further requirements before a person may be convicted of engaging in a pattern of criminal gang activity. * * * [T]aken as a whole, the above statute gives persons of ordinary intelligence fair warning of the proscribed, unprotected conduct and is not unconstitutionally vague.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“{¶ 42} “The statute requires more than the mere voluntary association asserted by appellant. As such, the statute does not unconstitutionally establish guilt by association alone, nor does it unconstitutionally punish nominal, inactive purely technical, or passive membership, even if such is accompanied by knowledge and intent.” Id. at ¶ 35. See, also, State v. Stallings, 150 Ohio App.3d 5 , 2002-Ohio-5942 , 778 N.E.2d 1110 (9th District concluded that R.C. 2923.42 was consistent with the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution).”
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.