State v. Volpe’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 139 Ohio App. 3d 231 - Helman v. Epl Prolong, Inc. (2000), 105 Ohio App. 3d 504 - State v. Sufronko (1995)
121 state decisions
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 Rodgers v. United States · State v. Frost · State ex rel. Myers v. Chiaramonte · 52 Ohio St. 2d 76 - City of Cincinnati v. Thomas Soft Ice Cream, Inc. · State v. McDonald
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage“R.C. 2915.02 (A)(5) and 923.24 are irreconcilable. R.C. 2915.02 (A)(5), in conjunction with R.C. 2915.02 (F), treats possession of a gambling device as a first degree misdemeanor. As such, a person convicted of violating R.C. 2915.02 (A)(5) could receive no prison sentence or a prison sentence of up to six months. See R.C. 2929.21 . R.C. 2923.24 makes possession of criminal tools, arguably such instruments as gambling devices, a fourth degree felony, carrying a minimum prison sentence of six months and a maximum prison sentence of five years. See R.C. 2929.11 . Therefore, since R.C. 2915.02 and 2923.24 provide for different penalties for the same conduct, they cannot be construed to give effect to both. R.C. 2915.02 and 2923.24 were enacted effective January 1, 1974, as part of the modern Ohio Criminal Code. Therefore, under R.C. 1.51 , the general law, R.C. 2923.24 , does not prevail as being the `later adoption.' Further, the fact that the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2915.02 (A)(5) to reach possession and control of gambling devices indicates that it did not intend for R.C. 2923.24 to reach possession and control of such devices.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(5) With purpose to violate division (A)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, acquire, possess , control, or operate any gambling device .”
4 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.