State v. Lester’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 154 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Calhoun (1999), State v. Jackson (1980)
3 federal appellate · 154 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 State v. Perry · State v. Juliano · State v. Sims · State v. Benton
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““R. C. 2953.21 requires the trial court to consider the allegations of the petition for postconviction relief and the particular facts upon which the petitioner bases his claim; if, upon such consideration, the trial court finds no grounds for a hearing, the court is required to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for dismissal and as to the grounds for relief relied upon in the petition.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * {¶ 17} "(C) * * * Before granting a hearing on a petition [for postconviction relief] * * *, the court shall determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief. * * * If the court dismisses the petition, it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to such dismissal .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"This matter came before the Court upon Defendant's petition for post-conviction relief. The petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 is denied. The Court finds that based upon the petition, the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, there are no substantive grounds for relief. As such, Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Further, Petitioner has raised issues which are barred by res judicata as they were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal."”
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.