162 Ohio App. 3d 795 - State v. Eppinger’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably 181 Ohio App. 3d 106 - State v. Preztak (2009), State v. Carpenter (2019)
27 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 City of Newark v. Vazirani · State v. Teamer · State v. Chippendale · State v. Volpe · 105 Ohio App. 3d 504 - State v. Sufronko
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion to dismiss charges in an indictment tests the sufficiency of the indictment, without regard to the quantity or quality of evidence that may be produced by either the State or the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frye · State v. Carpenter“(A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To summarize, R.C. 1.51 comes into play only when a general and a *Page 10 special provision constitute allied offenses of similar import and additionally do not constitute crimes committed separately or with a separate animus for each crime. When this is the case, we must proceed with our analysis of R.C. 1.51 . {¶ 37} "Where it is clear that a general provision of the Criminal Code applies coextensively with a special provision, R.C. 1.51 allows a prosecutor to charge on both. Conversely, where it is clear that a special provision prevails over a general provision or the Criminal Code is silent or ambiguous on the matter, under R.C. 1.51 , a prosecutor may charge only on the special provision. The only exception in the statute is where `* * * the general provision is the later provision and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.' Thus, unless the legislature enacts or amends the general provision later in time and manifests its intent to have the general provision apply coextensively with the special provision, the special provision must be the only provision applied to the defendant.”
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.