State v. Waiters’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
February 2024
most recently cited
19 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Blakemore v. Blakemore · State v. Adams · State v. Underwood · State v. Warner · 140 Ohio App. 3d 326 - State v. Martin
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thornton“in an amount based on the victim's economic loss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grove City v. Sample
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.