171 Ohio App. 3d 446 - State v. Purnell’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Gilbert (Slip Opinion) (2014), State v. Minkner (2011)
45 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 Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor · State v. Jordan · 63 Ohio St. 3d 597 - State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed · 30 Ohio App. 3d 118 - City of Brook Park v. Necak · State v. Danison
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the court imposes restitution, at sentencing, the court shall determine the amount of restitution to be made by the offender. If the court imposes restitution, the court may base the amount of restitution it orders on an amount recommended by the victim, the offender, a presentence investigation report, estimates or receipts indicating the cost of repairing or replacing property, and other information, provided that the amount the court orders as restitution shall not exceed the amount of the economic loss suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of the offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The parties cannot confer by consent or acquiescence subject-matter jurisdiction on a court where it is otherwise lacking. See Colley v. Colley (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 87, 92 , 538 N.E.2d 410 , citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm. v. Schor (1986), 478 U.S. 833 , 106 S.Ct. 3245 , 92 L.Ed.2d 675 ; see, also, State v. Flynt (1975), 44 Ohio App.2d 315, 317 , 73 O.O.2d 373 , 338 N.E.2d 554 (“Since jurisdiction of subject matter is fixed by law, the consent of the defendant cannot create such jurisdiction”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he plain language of R.C. 2929.18 (A)(1) establishes that if the trial court orders restitution at sentencing, it must determine the amount of restitution at that time.”
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.