Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 Ohio App. 154 - Fry v. State

43 Ohio App. 154 - Fry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
August 2010
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2010

5 state decisions

20193219401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “[a] defendant cannot be satisfied with a juror [at the time the jury is impaneled] * * * and then be heard to say after conviction that he is not then satisfied. One may not play fast and loose in this fashion.”
    1 later decision 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.