155 Ohio App. 3d 453 - State v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “R.C. 2907.07 (E)(2) is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of the state in promoting the welfare of children. R.C. 2907.07 (E)(2) is unlike many of the statutes challenged in other states and found to be unconstitutional due to vagueness or overbreadth. Cyberspace Communications, Inc. v. Engler (E.D.Mich. 1999), 55 F. Supp.2d 737 ; Am. Libraries Assn. v. Pataki (S.D.N.Y. 1997), 969 F. Supp. 160 . R.C. 2907.07 (E)(2) does not regulate the mere transmission of pictures, images, or messages that are deemed harmful to children. Rather, R.C. 2907.07 (E)(2) regulates the conduct of adults who seek to solicit minors to engage in sexual activity in conversations by means of the Internet or other telecommunications devices. Since such conduct is not protected by the First Amendment and serves no meaningful purpose, R.C. 2907.07 (E)(2) does not unduly interfere with interstate commerce.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bolden, Unpublished Decision (5-7-2004) · State v. Worst, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2005)

2. “In order to serve its interest and still withstand constitutional scrutiny, the State must choose the least restrictive means to accomplish the compelling interest. Sable Communications, 492 U.S. at 126 . `It is not enough to show that the Government's ends are compelling; the means must be carefully tailored to achieve those ends.' Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Graham, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2005)

3. “(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Chance, Unpublished Decision (7-17-2006)