Nasal v. Dover’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
May 2011
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Cook · Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. · City of Norwood v. Horney · 87 Ohio St. 3d 350 - Bielat v. Bielat · Doe II III v. Miller J
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“once again required to apply two provisions of Ohio law that limit the retroactive *Page 8 application of statutes. The first is the rule of statutory construction, adopted in R.C. 1.48 : `A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly made retrospective.' * * * The second is a rule of constitutional limitation, imposed in Section 28 , Article II of the Ohio Constitution: The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws * * *.' * * * A retroactive statute is unconstitutional if it retroactively impairs vested substantive rights, but not if it is merely remedial in nature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“) ensures that the statute applies to offenders who commit a sexually-oriented offense upon or after the effective date of the statute. In addition, by including the past perfect tense (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“with a construction of the statute that would apply only to persons who are convicted of the predicate offenses after the effective date of the statute”
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.