28 Ohio App. 3d 44 - Neff v. Engle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the accused, having consented to a termination which leaves open the question of guilt and possible conviction, cannot take advantage of it.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Paul J. Donohoe, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Charles L. Burd, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee · Clark v. Marc Glassman, Inc., Unpublished Decision (3-23-2006)

2. “`A termination of criminal proceedings in favor of the accused other than by acquittal is not a sufficient termination to meet the requirements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution if: (a) the charge is withdrawn or the prosecution abandoned pursuant to an agreement or compromise with accused; * * *.' Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1977), 419, Section 660. The rationale for the rule is that: `* * * although the accused by his acceptance of a compromise does not admit his guilt, the fact of compromise indicates that the question of his guilt or innocence is left open. Having bought peace the accused may not thereafter assert that the proceedings have terminated in his favor. Id. at Section 660(a), Comment c.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clark v. Marc Glassman, Inc., Unpublished Decision (3-23-2006)