State v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 507 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 521 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Fischer (2010), State v. Ketterer (2010)
8 federal appellate · 507 state decisions
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 Jones v. Thomas · State v. Bezak · State v. Jordan · State v. Saxon · State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski
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 521 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For criminal sentences imposed prior to July 11, 2006, in which a trial court failed to properly impose postrelease control, trial courts shall conduct a de novo sentencing hearing in accordance with decisions of the Supreme Court of Ohio.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Payton · State v. Pugh“sentences imposed on and after July 11, 2006, in which a trial court failed to properly impose post-release control, trial courts shall apply the procedures set forth in R.C. 2929.191.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Adams · State v. Schleiger“Effective July 11, 2006, R.C. 2929.191 establishes a procedure to remedy a sentence that fails to properly impose a term of postrelease control. It applies to offenders who have not yet been released from prison and who fall into at least one of three categories: those who did not receive notice at the sentencing hearing that they would be subject to postrelease control, those who did not receive notice that the parole board could impose a prison term for a violation of postrelease control, or those who did not have both of these statutorily mandated notices incorporated into their sentencing entries. R.C. 2929.191(A) and (B).”
4 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.