27 Ohio App. 3d 212 - State v. Roper’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2006
12 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 64 Ohio App. 2d 115 - State v. Defiore
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If it appears that the evidence sought can and will be destroyed on short notice, or that compliance could place the officers in peril of great bodily harm, then the officers may deviate from strict compliance with R.C. 2935.12.” (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted.) State v. Roper (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 212, 213 , 27 OBR 252, 253, 500 N.E.2d 353, 354 ; cf. Middleburg Hts. v. Theiss (1985), 28 Ohio App.3d 1 , 28 OBR 9, 501 N.E.2d 1226 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) When making an arrest or executing an arrest warrant * * * or when executing a search warrant, the peace officer, law enforcement officer, or other authorized individual making the arrest or executing the warrant or summons may break down an outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house or other building, if, after notice of his intention to make the arrest or to execute the warrant or summons, he is refused admittance, but the law enforcement officer or other authorized individual executing a search warrant shall not enter a house or building not described in the warrant.”
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.