Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 OHIOST3D 18 - State v. Roe

State v. Roe’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

243
cited by 243 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 237 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 243 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. Waddy (1992), State v. LaMar (2002)

6 federal appellate · 237 state decisions

101019891990200020102020decided

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 · Illinois v. Gates · Rhode Island v. Innis · Wainwright v. Witt · Moran v. Burbine

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

  1. “`they are so blended or connected with the one on trial as that proof of one incidentally involves the other; or explains the circumstances thereof; or tends logically to prove any element of the crime charged.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In order to preserve the right to appeal the sufficiency of evidence upon which a conviction is based, a defendant must timely file a Crim. R. 29 motion for acquittal with the trial court.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “This argument is without merit. The trial court explained to the jurors that the appellant was entitled to such list by statute and that it was, in any event, public information. The testimony was relevant to demonstrate that the cellmate did not fabricate his testimony from reading appellant’s “legal papers” as the only such papers he saw were the jury lists. Evid. R. 401. Appellant has not demonstrated that the probative value of such evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Evid. R. 403(A).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.