154 Ohio App. 3d 385 - State v. Gopp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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

1. “A finding as to offender's status as a habitual sex offender must be expressly made regardless of whether the offender was already adjudicated as a sexual predator for the commission of the sexually oriented offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Craig, Unpublished Decision (1-10-2005) · State v. Williams

2. “However, R.C. 2929.12 does not require specific language or specific findings on the record in order to show that the trial court considered the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors. State v. Gopp, 154 Ohio App.3d 385 , 390 , 2003-Ohio-4908 , citing State v. Arnett (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 208 , 215 . Accord State v. Hall (Feb. 28, 2000), Stark App. No. 1999CA00264: (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2006)

3. “shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender's recidivism and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2006)