18 Ohio App. 2d 1 - State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2018
11 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 90 Ohio App. 44 - State v. Phillips
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“but an era characterized by automatic mixing, measuring, and filling apparatus, the entire productive process being controlled by electronic and nucleonic gauges, measuring to infinitesimal precision, to produce an absolute result in meeting a required standard. This is the process that brings to a pharmacist an”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... In testing the reliability of this entirely different — non-people—evidence, Wigmore suggests what he talks about as “circumstantial probability of trustworthiness.” The language used at page 204, Section 1422, is: “ * * * under certain circumstances the probability of accuracy and trustworthiness of statement is practically sufficient, if not quite equivalent to that of statements tested in the conventional manner. * * *” And, as if to nullify an objection that there is no oath and possible punishment for perjury, he suggests that “where, even though a desire to state falsely may casually have subsisted, more powerful motives to accuracy overpower and supplant it.” (Page 369, Section 1522.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he labels in question are not hearsay, but if they are so regarded, they are an exception to the hearsay rule, as provided by the uniform-business-records statute, but, still further, they are real evidence, which could well have been used as an exhibit, and admitted as evidence, supported by circumstantial probability of trustworthiness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hill
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.