State v. Baumholtz’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Hill (1994), Department of Liquor Control v. Sons of Italy Lodge 0917 (1992)
38 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars · State v. Lilliock · Saunders v. Clark County Zoning Department · United States v. U. S. Currency
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(C) The prosecuting attorney, village solicitor, city director of law, or similar chief legal officer who has responsibility for the prosecution of the underlying criminal case or administrative proceeding, or the attorney general if the attorney general has that responsibility, shall file a petition for the forfeiture, to the seizing law enforcement agency, of the contraband seized pursuant to division (A) of this section. The petition shall be filed in the court that has jurisdiction over the underlying criminal case or administrative proceeding involved in the forfeiture.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * the General Assembly contemplated the forfeiture petition to be filed within a reasonable time after the seizure of the subject property. In ascertaining whether the state has filed the forfeiture within a reasonable time, the following four factors must be considered: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[n]o specific time limitation is set forth in this portion of the statute. Rather, the only words used are `upon seizure' the appropriate state agency `shall file a petition for the for the forfeiture * * * of the seized contraband.' Of necessity, therefore, we must determine the intent of the legislature as to the time requirements of R.C. 2933.-43(C).”
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.