Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 169 Ohio App. 3d 766 - State v. Kates

169 Ohio App. 3d 766 - State v. Kates’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably State v. Crowell (2010), State v. Body (2018)

54 state decisions

400200620102020decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · State v. Thompkins · State v. Jenks · 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · State v. Adams

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

  1. “No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “" '(1) an act by the defendant, (2) done with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay a public official, (3) that actually hampers or impedes a public official, (4) while the official is acting in the performance of a lawful duty, and (5) the defendant so acts without privilege.' "”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[F]leeing from a police officer who is lawfully attempting to detain the suspect . . ., is an affirmative act that hinders or impedes the officer in performance of the officer's duties as a public official and is a violation of R.C. 2921.31 , obstructing official business.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.