State v. Luck’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 299 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 306 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Adams (Slip Opinion) (2015), State v. Myers (2002)
5 federal appellate · 299 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · United States v. Marion · Brewer v. Williams · United States v. Lovasco · United States v. MacDonald
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 306 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n unjustifiable delay *Page 8 between the commission of an offense and a defendant's indictment therefor, which results in actual prejudice to the defendant, is a violation of the right to due process of law under Section 16 , Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“through negligence or error in judgment, effectively ceases the active investigation of a case, but later decides to commence prosecution upon the same evidence that was available to it at the time that its active investigation was ceased.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““We agree that Meeker was not nullified in its entirety by Marion , but we believe that in light of Marion and its progeny, our holding in Meeker is viable only insofar as its application is limited to cases that are factually similar to it. “In Meeker , the defendant committed acts at the same time and place which would have constituted four separate offenses; and in, June 1963, the state knowingly chose to indict the defendant for only one of those four possible offenses. When the defendant’s conviction on the 1963 indictment was overturned by a post-conviction order in 1969, the state obtained another indictment charging the defendant with the three other crimes that were committed in 1963.” Id. at 153 , 15 OBR at 299, 472 N.E.2d at 1101 .”
5 later decisions 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.