40 Ohio App. 3d 123 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * [W]e note that the disposition of a motion for shock probation made while the convicted person is serving a sentence pursuant to a judgment is a ‘special proceeding,’ and that whatever standards may control the granting of shock probation in R.C. 2951.02 to 2951.09, the denial of shock probation is not subject to any statutory or constitutional standards or requirements. The decision to deny is reposed exclusively in the discretion of the trial court. The movant for shock probation has no ‘substantial right’ entitling him to shock probation and, therefore, the denial of his motion is not ‘an order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding * * *.’ R.C. 2505.02. It is not a final appealable order.” (Emphasis sic.) Jones, supra, 40 Ohio App.3d at 124 , 532 N.E.2d at 154 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 61 Ohio App. 3d 427 - State v. Hatfield · State v. Hedgecoth, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2007)