53 Ohio App. 2d 266 - State v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably 23 Ohio App. 3d 93 - State v. Losey (1985), 137 Ohio App. 3d 206 - State v. Lovelace (1999)
68 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 Commonwealth v. Redline · Commonwealth v. Almeida · Commonwealth v. Moyer · People v. Podolski · 135 N.J. Super. 224 - State v. Canola
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“{¶ 23} “ ‘Having found that the Ohio legislature intended to adopt the proximate cause theory of criminal liability, as to R.C. 2903.04, we hold that when a person, acting individually or in concert with another, sets in motion a sequence of events, the foreseeable consequences of which were known or should have been known to him at the time, he is criminally liable for the direct, proximate and reasonably inevitable consequences of death resulting from his original criminal act.’ See, also, State v. Younger (May 31, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 57080, unreported, 1990 WL 71529 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'We conceive few dangers, faced by the law-abiding public, to be more extreme than the unlawful entrance of one person into a residence occupied by another. The risk of actual serious physical harm to a victim or wrongdoer, the threat of surprise of one by the other, the natural inclination of the victim, if present, to protect and defend his abode and his family are all factors too clear to discuss further. To imagine that the risk of physical harm is not foreseeable under the circumstances surrounding this case defies not only logic but also the characteristics of the human animal.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Long“We hold that a proper interpretation of the Ohio statute necessitates our finding that, in enacting R.C. 2903.04, the legislature intended to follow the theory of proximate cause rather than the theory of agency as the underlying basis of criminal responsibility under that statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carpenter
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.