State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our resolution of this issue is in accordance with other appellate districts that have considered the issue. See State v. Jackson , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27351, 2017-Ohio-4197 [ 2017 WL 2493624 ] (concluding Hand does not apply to the use of a juvenile adjudication as an element of having a weapon while under disability); State v. Boyer , 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-63, 2017-Ohio-4199 , 92 N.E.3d 213 (noting the concerns the Supreme Court articulated in Hand do not apply because the indictment for having a weapon while under disability "relates strictly to choices [the defendant] has made since reaching the age of majority"); State v. McCray , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160272, 2017-Ohio-2996 , 91 N.E.3d 288 (declining to extend Hand to bar the use of a juvenile adjudication to prove the disability element of having a weapon while under disability); State v. Hudson , 7th Dist. Mahoning, 2017-Ohio-645 , 85 N.E.3d 371 (finding no indication the Supreme Court would extend the holding in Hand to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and noting that many of the other statutory alternatives for establishing the disability element encompass facts that were not subjected to a prior jury trial); State v. Brown, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-753, 2017-Ohio-7134 [ 95 N.E.3d 962 ], ¶ 21 ("We conclude, therefore, that Hand does not apply to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2).").”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re: C.W.

2. “We conclude, therefore, that Hand does not apply to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re: C.W.