41 Ohio App. 3d 91 - State v. Daugherty’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2017
10 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 Chapman v. State of California · Berger v. United States · United States v. Dinitz · State v. Smith · 58 Cal. 2d 229 - People v. Perez
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is indisputable that at the trial level it is highly improper for a lawyer to refer in colloquy, argument, or other context to factual matter beyond the scope of the evidence or the range of judicial notice. This is true whether the case is being tried to a court or a jury * * ” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 92-93 , 534 N.E.2d at 890 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[i]t is highly improper for any lawyer in the trial of any jury case, civil or criminal, to make what amounts to testimonial assertions under the pretext that he is merely”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Urbina
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.