15 Ohio App. 3d 77 - State v. Wear’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably State v. Young (1985), 44 Ohio App. 3d 128 - State v. Robinson (1989)
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 Buckley v. Valeo · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Connally v. General Construction Co.
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.
““ * * * ‘The overbreadth doctrine prohibits a statute from making innocent or constitutionally protected conduct criminal. * * * The harm from an overbroad statute is its chilling effect on constitutionally protected or otherwise lawful conduct.’ Record Revolution No. 6, Inc. v. Parma (C.A.6, 1980), 638 F.2d 916 , 927, vacated (1981), 451 U.S. 1013 [ 101 S.Ct. 2998 , 69 L.Ed.2d 384 ], and (1982), 456 U.S. 968 [ 102 S.Ct. 2227 , 72 L.Ed.2d 840 ]. Overbroad statutes or laws, like those which are vague, deter privileged activity. [Grayned v.] City of Rockford, supra [ 408 U.S. 104 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. * * *” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 357 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No person shall knowingly engage in or be employed at cockfighting ...; no person shall receive money for the admission of another to a place kept for such purpose; _ Any person who knowingly purchases a ticket of admission to such place, or is present thereat, or witnesses such a spectacle, is an aider and abettor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Young
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.