State v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably State v. Morales (1987), State v. Morris (Slip Opinion) (2014)
50 state decisions
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 Chapman v. State of California · State v. Maurer · State v. Lytle · Ohio v. Hymore · State v. Curry
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Prosecution evidence that a defendant has committed other crimes, wrongs or acts independent of the offense for which he is on trial is not generally admissible to demonstrate that the defendant has a propensity for crime or that his character is in conformity with the other acts.” (Emphasis added.) See, also, State v. Adams (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 223 , 7 O.O. 3d 393, 374 N.E. 2d 137 , vacated in part on other grounds (1978), 439 U.S. 811 ; State v. Lytle (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 391 , 2 O.O. 3d 495, 358 N.E. 2d 623 , vacated in part on other grounds (1978), 438 U.S. 910 ; and State v. Curry (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 66 , 72 O.O. 2d 37, 330 N.E. 2d 720 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See, also, R.C. 2945.59. 9”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the prosecution may not introduce evidence of other criminal acts of the accused unless the evidence is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show a probability that the individual committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character. * * *”
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.