149 Ohio App. 3d 318 - State v. Pierson’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
March 2021
most recently cited
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Fanning · State v. Mills · 86 Ohio App. 3d 592 - State v. Guysinger · 73 Ohio App. 3d 486 - State v. Klein · 93 Ohio App. 3d 586 - State v. Retherford
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The standard of review of a speedy trial issue is to count the days of delay chargeable to either side and determine whether the case was tried within the time limits set by R.C. 2945.71 . State v. Blumensaadt (Sept. 21, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-107, [ 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4283 , at ]; see, also, State v. Pierson , 149 Ohio App.3d 318 , 2002-Ohio-4515 , * * * at ¶ 12. (Overruled on other grounds.) {¶ 35}”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(H) The period of any continuance granted on the accused's own motion, and the period of any reasonable continuance granted other than upon the accused's own motion * * *.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] plain reading of R.C. 2945.71 demonstrates that the mere setting of a trial date is irrelevant. Rather, it is the date that the defendant is actually `brought to trial' that is relevant to calculating the speedy trial time.”
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.