44 Ohio App. 3d 102 - State v. Lambros’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
197 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Wynn (1998), 80 Ohio App. 3d 452 - State v. Thomas (1992)
197 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. Adams · 68 Ohio App. 2d 211 - State v. Peterseim · 17 Ohio App. 3d 201 - State v. Blatnik · 4 Ohio App. 3d 136 - State v. Longo · 2 Ohio App. 3d 117 - State v. Walton
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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It seems that a defendant who has a change of heart regarding his guilty plea should not be permitted to withdraw the plea just because he is made aware that an unexpected sentence is going to be imposed. Otherwise, defense counsel merely has to allege that the defendant's plea was induced by some underlying `mistaken belief'. . . . and the plea would be vacated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The underlying facts are not fully developed, and we thus are unable to completely evaluate the validity of this claimed defense. 10 Balancing {¶ 44} After balancing all of the foregoing factors, we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Instead, this appears to be”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“there is nothing in the record to suggest that he became aware of any difficulties in the State's proof or of potentially exculpatory evidence after he pled no contest which would have altered his decision to enter a plea. Again, the record reflects that Deloach merely experienced a change of heart. See Lellock at ¶ 11-12 . Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Deloach's motion to withdraw his pleas. {¶ 19} The first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 20} II.”
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.