Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 OHIOST3D 224 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

94 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably State v. Deem (1988), State v. Thomas (1988)

94 state decisions

37019881990200020102020decided

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 Beck v. Alabama · Keeble v. United States · State v. Jenkins · Public Service Commission v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. · State v. Thompson

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

  1. “any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) * * * the offense on which the instruction is requested is necessarily lesser than and included within the charged offense, under the statutory elements test announced in State v. Kidder (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 279 , 513 N.E. 2d 311 ; and (2) after examining the facts of the case, ascertains that the jury could reasonably conclude that the evidence supports a conviction for the lesser offense and not the greater.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Specifically, * * * a charge on the lesser included offense is not required, unless the trier of fact could reasonably reject an affirmative defense and could reasonably find against the state and for the accused upon one or more of the elements of the crime charged, and for the state and against the accused on the remaining elements, which by themselves would sustain a conviction upon a lesser included offense.”
    3 later decisions 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.