Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1996 OHIO 323 - State v. Eley

State v. Eley’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

153
cited by 153 later decisions
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 148 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State v. LaMar (2002), State v. Leonard (2004)

2 federal appellate · 148 state decisions

6901996200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Jenks · State v. Bradley · Colorado v. Connelly · Pate v. Robinson

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

  1. “Intent need not be proven by direct testimony. State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 168 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , 302 . Instead, intent to kill `may be deduced from all the surrounding circumstances, including the instrument used to produce death, its tendency to destroy life if designed for that purpose, and the manner of inflicting a fatal wound.' State v. Robinson (1954), 161 Ohio St. 213 , 53 O.O. 96 , 118 N.E.2d 517 , at paragraph five of the syllabus; State v. Eley (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 174 , 180 , 672 N.E.2d 640 , 648”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whether a statement was made voluntarily and whether an accused voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived [her] right to counsel and right against self-incrimination are distinct issues.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the prosecutor's comments were improper and, if so, whether those remarks prejudicially affected the defendant's substantial rights.”
    2 later decisions 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.