46 Ohio App. 3d 152 - State v. Theuring’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably State v. Keith (1997), 70 Ohio App. 3d 624 - State v. Lewis (1990)
2 federal appellate · 89 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 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · Strother v. Hutchinson · Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Gibbons · State v. Graham · 12 Ohio St. 2d 53 - Taylor v. Webster
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "(1) the witness * * * is presented with the former statement; (2) the witness is asked whether he made the statement; (3) the witness is given an opportunity to admit, deny or explain the statement; and (4) the opposing party is given an opportunity No. 20AP-571 11 to interrogate the witness on the inconsistent statement.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court may require a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a misdemeanor to make restitution for all or part of the property damage that is caused by his offense and for all or part of the value of the property that is the subject of any theft offense * * *.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness.' Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded a prior opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to' interrogate him thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in Rule 801(D)(2).””
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.