Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 OHIOAPP3D 589 - State v. Starks

State v. Starks’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Long · State v. Barnes · City of Barberton v. Jenney · 158 Ohio App. 3d 657 - City of Cincinnati v. Levine · 124 Ohio Misc. 2d 92 - State v. Kincaid

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

  1. “In order to be convicted of speeding based on laser-device evidence, there must be evidence introduced at trial that the device is scientifically reliable.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he scientific reliability of a laser device used to measure speed is a fact that is subject to judicial notice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Although the underlying principles of laser technology may be the same from one device to another, generally judicial notice as to the reliability of a speed-measuring device is device specific. * * * Therefore, expert testimony is necessary, 'whether it be a new device or an upgrade of an existing device, before the court may take judicial notice of that particular device in future proceedings.'”
    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.