159 Ohio App. 3d 469 - State v. Bays’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2020
6 federal appellate · 8 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 Atkins v. Virginia · Ford v. Wainwright · State v. Bays · Castillo v. United States · Cherokee Corp. of Linden, Virginia, Inc. v. Capital Skiing Corp.
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.
“There is a significant difference between expert testimony offered for mitigation purposes and expert testimony offered for Atkins purposes. Although the expert testimony presented at [appellant's] mitigation hearing regarding his intellectual limitations is relevant to [appellant's] Atkins claim, it was not developed either to prove or to disprove the issue presented by his Atkins claim[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he trial court should rely on professional evaluations of [the defendant's] mental status, and consider expert testimony, appointing experts if necessary * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“he must be allowed access to the resources that might permit him to rebut this presumption, in view of the fact that he is an indigent defendant with significant, documented cognitive deficits, as shown by his school records and the testimony of [the two experts offered for mitigation purposes].”
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.