181 Ohio App. 3d 407 - State v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
January 2023
most recently cited
23 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Blakemore v. Blakemore · State v. Adams · State v. Warner · 140 Ohio App. 3d 326 - State v. Martin · 34 Ohio App. 3d 33 - State v. Williams
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'shall not exceed the amount of the economic loss suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of the offense[,]'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Betley · State v. Becraft“because R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) states that the trial court's order of restitution shall not exceed the amount of economic loss suffered by the victim, and double recovery would amount to an impermissible economic windfall for the victim, the evidence introduced to demonstrate the actual economic loss suffered by the victim must take account of any offsets to the victim's economic loss and any mitigation of damages in the form of compensation received for the loss from, for example, insurance, the Ohio Title Defect Rescission Fund, or civil judgments against the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“in an amount based on the victim's economic loss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Becraft
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.