150 Ohio App. 3d 567 - State v. Leach’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

cited by 54 later decisions

states following

November 2023

most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Setters v. Durrani (2020), State v. Mincey (2023)

54 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. Thompkins · Doyle v. Ohio · Malloy v. Hogan · Jenkins v. Anderson

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Maag, Unpublished Decision (7-25-2005) · State v. Ray, Unpublished Decision (10-30-2006)
“lay opinion must be: (1) `rationally based on the perception of the witness,' i.e., the witness must have firsthand knowledge of the subject of his testimony and the opinion must be one that a rational person would form on the basis of the observed facts; and (2) `helpful,' i.e., it must aid the trier of fact in understanding the testimony of the witness or in determining a fact in issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Madaris, C-070287 (5-23-2008) · State v. Madaris, C-070287 (3-28-2008)
“[u]se of a defendant's pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Whitaker, 07ca3168 (8-11-2008) · State v. Bajaj, Unpublished Decision (6-8-2005)

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.