Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 Ohio App. 3d 719 - State v. Clark

173 Ohio App. 3d 719 - State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Brimacombe (2011), State v. Bolton (2017)

34 state decisions

200200720102020decided

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 State v. Lilliock · State v. Casalicchio · 102 Ohio App. 3d 514 - State v. Roberts · 19 Ohio App. 3d 210 - City of Dayton v. Boddie · 64 Ohio App. 3d 230 - State v. Gaines

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

  1. “"The statute was repealed effective July 1, 2007. For forfeiture of contraband, see now R.C. 2981.01 et seq. The legislation accompanying R.C. 2981.01 to 2981.14 , Section 4 of 2006 H 241 specifically provides as follows: `Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this act shall take effect on July 1, 2007. If a criminal or civil forfeiture action relating to misconduct under Title XXIX of the Revised Code was or is commenced before July”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Like former R.C. 2933.41 (repealed), the provisions of R.C. 2981.01 through R.C. 2981.14 (which replaced former R.C. 2933.41 ) also preclude the return of property used in the commission of certain offenses under certain conditions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2933.41 are criminal in nature but civil in form. State v. Selbak , 2d Dist. No. CA2002-06-139, 2003-Ohio-2688 , 2003 WL 21211490 , ¶ 23.”
    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.