State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Hanning (2000), State v. Chapman (1986)
35 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 52 Ohio St. 2d 112 - State v. Graven
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The court shall impose a term of actual incarceration of three years in addition to imposing a life sentence pursuant to section 2907.02, 2907.12, or 2929.02 of the Revised Code or an indefinite term of imprisonment pursuant to section 2929.11 of the Revised Code, if both of the following apply: “(1) The offender is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, any felony other than a violation of section 2923.12 [carrying a concealed weapon] of the Revised Code; “(2) The offender is also convicted of, or pleads guilty to, a specification charging him with having a firearm on or about his person or under his control while committing the felony. The three-year term of actual incarceration imposed pursuant to this section shall be served consecutively with, and prior to, the life sentence or the indefinite term of imprisonment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Chapman““The parties herein agree that appellant was unarmed throughout the commission of the instant offense. Appellant contends that, as such, he is not subject to enhancement of his sentence pursuant to R.C. 2929.71(B), inasmuch as the state never established that appellant had a firearm on or about his person or under his control during the commission of the offense. The state maintains that, as long as appellant was found guilty of one of the offenses enumerated in R.C. 2929.71(B), enhancement under that same section is proper. We agree with the state’s interpretation of R.C. 2929.71(B) as it existed prior to July 1, 1983.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`[w]hoever violates this section is guilty of complicity in the commission of an offense, and shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender. * * * A charge of complicity may be stated in terms of this section, or in terms of the principal offense [,]'”
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.