Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 Ohio App. 3d 36 - State v. Knox

18 Ohio App. 3d 36 - State v. Knox’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2012

18 state decisions

801984199020002010decided

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 Ohio v. Roberts · State v. Spikes · Ohio v. Tims

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

  1. “(6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, or conditions, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimory of the custodian or other qualified witness or as provided by Rule 901(BX10), unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness The term "business”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ Tt is the understanding of the committee that the use of the phrase “person with knowledge” is not intended to imply that the party seeking to introduce the * * * data compilation must be able to produce, or even identify, the specific individual upon whose first-hand knowledge the * * * data compilation was based. A sufficient foundation for the introduction of such evidence will be laid if the party seeking to introduce the evidence is able to show that it was the regular practice of the activity to base such * * * data compilations upon a transmission from a person with knowledge, e.g., in the case of * * * a computer printout, upon a report from the company’s computer programer \sic ] or one who has knowledge of the particular record system. In short, the scope of the phrase “person with knowledge” is meant to be coterminous with the custodian of the evidence or some other qualified witness. The committee believes this represents the desired rule in light of the complex nature of modern business organizations.’ Senate Report No. 93-1277, Fed.R.Evid. 803(6), Title 28, U.S.Code, 274-275.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 37 , 18 OBR at 62-63, 480 N.E.2d at 122 .”
    2 later decisions 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.