State v. Winters’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' “And in State v. Shank (1962), 115 Ohio App. 291 , paragraph two of the syllabus provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ‘An indictment under Section 2961.12, Revised Code, which describes four of the offenses specified in Section 2961.11, Revised Code, and alleges that the defendant pleaded guilty to and was sentenced on all four offenses, is .insufficient, and subject to a motion to quash.’ “Judge Bryant, speaking for the court in Shank, supra, at pages 298 and 299, reasoned as follows: “ ‘ * * * The most that the indictment says is that Shank pleaded guilty to certain offenses. That, of course, is one of the steps which may form, the. basis for a conviction just as a verdict of guilty may he the foundation for a judgment of conviction. Both may be in proper cases refused or set aside and frequently are. The statute uses the term convictions which is not the same as a guilty plea or a guilty verdict.’ [Emphasis added.] “See, also, Harvey v. Myers, 110 Ohio App. 469 : Ex parte Briggs, 86 Ohio App. 215 ; Hamilton v. Russell, 54 Ohio Law Abs. 57 ; Columbus v. Carson, 23 Ohio App. 299 . “An allegation of a plea of guilty lias been held not to be the equivalent of an allegation of a conviction. See Smith v. State (1918), 75 Fla. 468 ; Timmons v. State (1929), 97 Fla. 23 ; Shargaa v. State (Fla.), 102 So. 2d 809 ; Fowler v. State (1918), 14 Okla. Cr. 316 , 170 P. 917 ; Wright v. State (1919), 16 Okla. Cr. 458 , 184 P. 158 ; Schooley v. United States (C. C. A. 8, 1925), 4 F. 2d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Henderson