Core v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[T]he legislature intended that body parts that are not traditionally viewed as erogenous zones, may, in some instances, be considered erogenous zones.' " Core v. State, 191 Ohio App.3d 651 , 2010-Ohio-6292 , ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Miesse, 2d Dist. No. 99-CA-74 (Aug. 18, 2000) (rejecting an argument that stomach was not an erogenous zone because it was not among the body parts listed in R.C. 2907.01(B)). See also State v. Ball, 4th Dist. No. 07CA2, 2008-Ohio-337, ¶ 26 ("[w]hile the mouth is not specifically among the body parts listed in R.C. 2907.01, it may, under the facts of a particular case, be considered an erogenous zone”

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

2. “any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttocks, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.”

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