Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 OHIOST3D 19 - State v. Earlenbaugh

State v. Earlenbaugh’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably 44 Ohio App. 3d 128 - State v. Robinson (1989), 113 Ohio App. 3d 14 - Campbell v. Colley (1996)

51 state decisions

16019851990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Harriss · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. · Nash v. United States · Rose v. Locke

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

  1. “implies an act done intentionally, designedly, knowingly, or purposely, without justifiable excuse.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “No person shall operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street or highway in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Such conduct implies an act done intentionally, designedly, knowingly, or purposely, without justifiable excuse. . . . Indeed, we are hard-pressed to identify two related statutory terms which are as well-established, clear, and definite in meaning under our legal jurisprudence as the terms “willful” or “wanton.””
    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.