Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 179 Ohio App. 3d 135 - State v. Tate

179 Ohio App. 3d 135 - State v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Bassham · State v. Caltrider

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

  1. “There is no provision in the Rules of Criminal Procedure for a motion to vacate a final order granting a motion to suppress. 'Courts in Ohio not only have no authority to reconsider a valid final judgment in criminal cases * * * they are also precluded from reentering judgment in order to circumvent the App.R. 4(A) limitation period.' State v. Myers (Nov. 18, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 65309, unreported [ 1993 WL 483554 ]; State v. Bernard (May 26, 2000), Montgomery App. No. 18058, unreported [ 2000 WL 679008 ].”
    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.