Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 OHIOST3D 136 - In re Townsend

In re Townsend’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2020

17 state decisions

901990200020102020decided

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 43 Ohio App. 3d 184 - State v. Williams

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * Thus, we specifically disapprove State v. Williams, supra, to the extent it holds that ‘absconds’ requires proof that the probationer left the jurisdiction. * * * Courts of law are not warranted in giving such a construction to the acts of a legislature, as must necessarily work injustice and be fraught with injurious consequences, unless the intent of the legislature that they shall be so understood, is manifest and clear beyond any rational doubt. * * *” ’ Lessee of Allen v. Parish (1827), 3 Ohio 187, 198 , quoted in part by Judge Krupansky in State v. Williams, supra, at 189, 540 N.E.2d at 304-305 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.