State v. Ostrowski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In our opinion, such a provision is not intended to and does not take away from a trial court its basic right to order a separation of witnesses until such time as such witnesses have testified. During such time the exclusion is not of parents, as such, but instead is the exclusion of witnesses. Moreover, during such time as the parents were so excluded, the juvenile was fully and adequately represented by two attorneys. Under these circumstances, no possible prejudice to the juvenile could result from such exclusion.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Vaughn · In re M.W.

2. “[a] handwriting exemplar, used solely for identification purposes, is a mere identifying physical characteristic and, as such, is outside the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. * * * [T]here is no requirement that Miranda warnings be given prior to the giving of such handwriting exemplar.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Ohio App. 3d 294 - State v. Flinn · State v. Boayue

3. “"If the parents of a juvenile who is the subject of a delinquency hearing in Juvenile Court are to testify at the hearing, the exclusion by the judge of the parents from the courtroom under an order for separation of witnesses until they have testified is not prejudicial, where the juvenile is represented by counsel during the hearing." Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Vaughn