Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 Ohio App. 3d 136 - State v. Longo

4 Ohio App. 3d 136 - State v. Longo’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
1
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

94 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 44 Ohio App. 3d 102 - State v. Lambros (1988), 152 Ohio App. 3d 311 - State v. Samatar (2003)

94 state decisions

33019821990200020102020decided

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 McMann v. Richardson · Rideout v. United States · United States v. Grayson · State v. Smith · State v. Lytle

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

  1. “an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Even though the judge conducted his extramural investigation during the sentencing phase (when admittedly a court has more discretionary leeway), he exceeded his authority in telephoning the wife of the vehicle owner at all, and, particularly, in determining what the `husband saw' through the wife's eyes. From this, he drew conclusions obviously crucial to the sentencing decision. In this case, the exact perimeters of sentencing discretion need not be determined. For here the actions of the court went beyond any defensible limit and, in effect, sentenced the defendant for acts neither charged nor proven. An abuse of discretion is clear.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[E]ven where no specific promise was made, and a guilty plea was entered as a result of a 'grave misunderstanding' solely on the part of defense counsel and not participated in by either the prosecution or the judge, the interests of justice require that the defendants be relieved of the pleas and the judgments of conviction vacated.”
    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.