Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 Ohio App. 3d 72 - State v. Carlson

31 Ohio App. 3d 72 - State v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Barnes (2002), State v. Mack (1995)

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

16019861990200020102020decided

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 State v. Robbins · State v. Melchior · State v. Ferguson · State v. Kehn · 123 Ohio St. 196 - McGaw v. State

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

  1. ““A defendant, when arguing self-defense, may testify about specific instances of the victim’s prior conduct in order to establish the defendant’s state of mind. These events are admissible in evidence, not because they establish something about the victim’s character, but because they tend to show why the defendant believed the victim would kill or severely injure him.” State v. Carlson (1986), 31 Ohio App.3d 72 , 31 OBR 112, 508 N.E.2d 999 , paragraph one of the syllabus. See, also, State v. Roderick (1907), 77 Ohio St. 301 , 82 N.E. 1082 .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Evid.R. 103(A)(2) excuses the need for a proffer where the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context.”
    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.