42 Ohio App. 3d 69 - State v. Cravens’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

cited by 54 later decisions

states following

April 2019

most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 63 Ohio St. 3d 590 - State v. S.R. (1992), Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (1994)

54 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 Davis v. State Personnel Bd. of Review · 136 Ohio St. 371 - State Ex Rel. Gordon v. Zangerle · 136 Ohio St. 425 - State v. Burrell · 8 Ohio App. 3d 358 - City of Cleveland v. Scott · 3 Ohio App. 3d 365 - State v. Bonello

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

““The interpretation of a statute is the determination of what the statute means. The interpretation starts and ends with the words chosen by the legislature, but is not limited to the words alone, because the whole context of the enactment must be considered. “The process of interpretation requires (1) a decision about the purpose to be attributed to the statute and (2) a decision about the meaning of the legislature’s words that will carry out that purpose. The words have a double function: They serve as guides to discovery of the purpose, and they serve as limitations on the extent of the statute’s applications. The words must be taken in the usual, normal or customary meaning.” Id. at 72 , 536 N.E.2d at 689 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 44 Ohio App. 3d 201 - State v. Ware · 43 Ohio App. 3d 39 - State v. Brown
““At the time of sentencing and after sentencing, when a fine is imposed, the court may: “(1) Suspend all or any portion of the fine, upon any conditions that the court imposes in the interests of justice and the correction and rehabilitation of the offender; “(2) Permit payment of all or any portion of the fine in installments, or by such other method and in such time and on such terms as the court considers just, except that the maximum time permitted for payment shall not exceed two years.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 82 Ohio App. 3d 57 - City of Akron v. Smith · 63 Ohio App. 3d 656 - State v. Air Clean Damper Co.
““No court shall impose a mandatory fíne pursuant to division (H) of this section upon an offender who alleges, in an affidavit filed with the court prior to his sentencing, that he is indigent and is unable to pay any mandatory fine imposed pursuant to that division, if the court determines that the offender is an indigent person and is unable to pay the fine.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Brown · 112 Ohio App. 3d 225 - State v. Martin

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.