156 Ohio App. 3d 219 - State v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dixson, Unpublished Decision (5-21-2004) · State v. Johnson, 04 Ma 193 (6-26-2007)

2. “[i]n applying this statute, courts have used a two-step analysis. The first step requires a comparison of the elements of the offenses in the abstract. Allied offenses of similar import are those offenses that correspond to such a degree that the commission of one offense will result in the commission of the other. State v. Rance (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 632 , 638-639 * * *; State v. Mitchell (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 416 [.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hassel, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2006) · State v. Ross, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005)

3. “[w]here the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dixson, Unpublished Decision (5-21-2004)