5 Ohio App. 3d 168 - State v. Oviedo’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably 112 Ohio App. 3d 521 - State v. Hopfer (1996), State v. Watson (1989)
3 federal appellate · 20 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 Bruton v. United States · Gault · Harris v. New York · Kent v. United States · Oregon v. Hass
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation in any facility designed for the care, supervision and rehabilitation of delinquent children; and”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McDonald · Oviedo v. Jago“We note that the court must not only determine that the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation in any facility designed for the care, supervision, and rehabilitation of delinquent children, but also find reasonable grounds to believe '[t]he safety of the community may require that the child be placed under legal restraint for a period extending beyond the child's majority.' In the absence of specific guidelines in regard to this second factor, it is appropriate for the court to consider the nature of the offense, the existence of aggravating circumstance^ and the extent of any apparent antisocial conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gott“[N]ot all of the relevant factors need be resolved against the juvenile in order to justify the transfer, nor is the court required 'to make an arithmetic-type calculation as to the weight given by it to each fact.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gott
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.