State v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 201 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 205 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Collier (1991), City of Columbus v. Taylor (1988)
2 federal appellate · 201 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Sandstrom v. Montana · Kolender v. Lawson · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville
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 205 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These values are first, to provide fair warning to the ordinary citizen so behavior may comport with the dictates of the statute; second, to preclude arbitrary, capricious and generally discriminatory enforcement by officials given too much authority and too few constraints; and third, to ensure that fundamental constitutionally protected freedoms are not unreasonably impinged or inhibited. Proper constitutional analysis necessitates a review of each of these rationales with respect to the challenged statutory language.” Id., 15 Ohio St.3d at 3 , 15 OBR at 3; 472 N.E.2d at 691 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Under the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, any statute which fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute is void for vagueness.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * Drunk drivers represent a danger not only to themselves but to every citizen of this state. To aver * * * that an individual has some fundamental right to operate a dangerous instrumentality under the influence of a perception altering substance is an untenable proposition that we are compelled to reject.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cleary
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.