33 Ohio App. 2d 240 - State v. Deckard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The delay caused by the act of the accused within thecomtemplation of R. C. 2945.72 is not limited to a wrongful or intentional delay by the accused and it does-not include a continuance upon a motion of the accused because this is separately set forth in R. C. 2945.72 as a reason for the denial of a discharge. Acquiescing in a continuance sought by the state constitutes delay by the- accused within the contemplation of R. C. 2945.72. Where a continuance is sought by the state which would result in the accused-not being brought to trial , within the three-term rule of R. C. 2945.72, and the accused does not object to such continuance and demand a trial within such time, he has acquiesced -in the continuance, and is not entitled to discharge pursuant to R. C. 2945.72. See State v. Suspirata (1943), 71 Ohio App. 500 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 49 Ohio App. 2d 96 - State v. Wentz