State v. Dykas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 state decisions

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

1. “But when reviewing a claim by a defendant that evidence supports his claim of self-defense, the manifest-weight standard is the proper standard of review because a defendant claiming self-defense does not seek to negate an element of the offense charged but rather seeks to relieve himself from culpability. (Emphasis added.) Cleveland v. Williams, Cuyahoga App. No. 81369, 2003-Ohio-31 , 2003 WL 60989 , ¶10, citing State v. Martin (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 91 , 21 OBR 386, 488 N.E.2d 166 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kurtz · State v. Meisel

2. “Having found that the Ohio legislature intended to adopt the proximate cause theory of criminal liability, as to R.C. 2903.04, we hold that when a person, acting individually or in concert with another, sets in motion a sequence of events, the foreseeable consequences of which were known or should have been known to him at the time, he is criminally liable for the direct, proximate and reasonably inevitable consequences of death resulting from his original criminal act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mills

3. “' See also Chambers, 53 Ohio App.2d 266 , 7 O.O.3d 326 , 373 N.E.2d 393 ; State v. Bumgardner (Aug. 21, 1998), Greene App. No. 97-CA-103, 1998 WL 892120 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mills