Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 OHIOST3D 36 - State v. Krutz

State v. Krutz’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (1994), 51 Ohio App. 3d 148 - In Re Burchfield (1988)

46 state decisions

15019861990200020102020decided

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 Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc. · Board of Education v. Fulton County Budget Commission · 151 Ohio St. 19 - State v. Fremont Lodge of Loyal Order of Moose · 20 Ohio App. 2d 204 - Volan v. Keller

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

  1. “Courts do not have the authority to ignore the plain and unambiguous language in a statute in the guise of statutory interpretation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “R.C. Chapter 2921 also has two additional requirements not found in R.C. Chapter 913: (1) that the thief be a public official and (2) that he use his office to commit or facilitate commission of that theft or that the property or services involved be owned by the government. R.C. 2921.41(A). Thus, while thievery is regulated by both chapters, R.C. Chapter 2921 adds these requirements in order to serve a separate purpose - more stringent punishment of, and protection of the public from, those who abuse and corrupt public offices.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]heft in office offenses, as defined in R.C. 2921.41 , are not `theft offenses' which must be tried as a single offense under [former] R.C. 2913.61(C).”
    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.