Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 153 Ohio App. 3d 121 - State v. Woodbridge

153 Ohio App. 3d 121 - State v. Woodbridge’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
5
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2024

17 state decisions

100200320102020decided

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 · Kolender v. Lawson · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[R.C. 2923.42 ] requires more than just the knowledge of criminal conduct. A person charged with participating in criminal gang activity must be found to actively participate with knowledge that the criminal gang engages in or has engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity and must purposively promote, further, or assist any criminal conduct, as such is defined in R.C. 2923.41 (C), or shall purposely commit or engage in any act that constitutes criminal conduct as defined by that same section. R.C. 2923.41 (B)(2) then states further requirements before a person may be convicted of engaging in a pattern of criminal gang activity. * * * [T]aken as a whole, the above statute gives persons of ordinary intelligence fair warning of the proscribed, unprotected conduct and is not unconstitutionally vague.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he commission of, an attempt to commit, a conspiracy to commit, complicity in the commission of, or solicitation, coercion, or intimidation of another to commit, attempt to commit, conspire to commit, or be in complicity in the commission of an offense listed in [R.C. 2923.41 (B)(1)(a), (b), or (c)] or an act that is committed by a juvenile and that would be an offense, an attempt to commit an offense, a conspiracy to commit an offense, complicity in the commission of, or solicitation, coercion, or intimidation of another to commit, attempt to commit, conspire to commit, or be in complicity in the commission of an offense listed in [R.C. 2923.41 (B)(1)(a), (b), or (c)] if committed by an adult.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The motion shall specify that the seizure of specified property was unlawful, state the reasons why the movant believes the seizure was unlawful, state that the movant is lawfully entitled to possession of the seized property, and request the court of common pleas to issue an order that mandates the law enforcement agency having custody of the seized property to return it to the movant.”
    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.