Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 OHIOST3D 340 - State v. White

State v. White’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

107
cited by 107 later decisions
5
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 103 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 98 Ohio App. 3d 412 - State v. Sibert (1994), 37 Ohio App. 3d 3 - State v. Henry (1987)

2 federal appellate · 103 state decisions

35019851990200020102020decided

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 People v. Dennison · 70 Ohio App. 2d 283 - State v. Slider · Smelker v. State

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

  1. ““Consecutive terms of imprisonment imposed shall not exceed * * * [a]n aggregate minimum term of fifteen years, plus the sum of all three-year terms of actual incarceration imposed pursuant to section 2929.71 of the Revised Code and the sum of all six-year terms of actual incarceration imposed pursuant to section 2929.72 of the Revised code, when the consecutive terms imposed are for felonies other than aggravated murder or murder[.]””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]here a trial court's sentence exceeds the minimum established for consecutive terms, such judgment is not the basis of a reversible error, as the terms of [R.C. 2929.41 (E)(2)] are self-executing, automatically operating to limit the aggregate minimum sentencing to fifteen years.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “when a trial court imposes a sentence and orders it to be served consecutively with any future sentence to be imposed, it appears that such a sentence interferes with the discretion of the second trial judge to fashion an appropriate sentence.”
    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.