State v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably 112 Ohio App. 3d 521 - State v. Hopfer (1996), In re A.J.S. (2008)
105 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. Carmichael · State v. Douglas · State v. Adams · 5 Ohio App. 3d 168 - State v. Oviedo
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Rule 30 calls for a broad assessment of individual circumstances. Mechanical application of a rigidly defined test would not serve the purposes of the public or the juvenile. Further, reduction of the bindover decision to a formula would constrain desirable judicial discretion. We agree with appellant that Rule 30(E) [now Rule 30(F) ] requires consideration of all the listed factors, but we discern nothing in the rule, or in the policy it serves, which prohibits consideration of other relevant factors. “The seriousness of the alleged act is relevant to ‘the assessment of the probability of rehabilitating the child within the juvenile justice system’ for a number of reasons. “[T]he nature of the alleged act is usually relevant to the child’s mental health, a factor which the court must also consider * * *. Generally the greater the culpability of the offense, the less amenable will the juvenile be to rehabilitation. In making the bindover decision, it would not be logical, or consistent with Rule 30(E) [now Rule 30(F) ], to consider the juvenile’s past record but ignore the act which has brought the juvenile to court. Accordingly, we hold that in deciding whether to relinquish jurisdiction over a child, a juvenile court may consider the seriousness of the alleged offense * * Id. at 95-96 , 547 N.E.2d at 1184 .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“resolved against the juvenile so long as the totality of the evidence supports a finding that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rice · State v. Watkins“[T]he juvenile court enjoys wide latitude to retain or relinquish jurisdiction, and the ultimate decision lies within its sound discretion.”
3 later decisions 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.