State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 state decisions

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

1. “`R.C. 2945.71 (E) is applicable only to those defendants held in jail in lieu of bail solely on the pending charge. A parole violation is a separate offense and does not relate to the pending charge as contemplated by R.C. 2945.71(E).'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Glover, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2007) · State v. Brown

2. “(B) Subject to division (D) of this section, a person against whom a charge of misdemeanor, other than a minor misdemeanor, is pending in a court of record, shall be brought to trial as follows: {¶ 17} "* * * {¶ 18} "(2) Within ninety days after the person's arrest or the service of summons, if the offense charged is a misdemeanor of the first or second degree, or other misdemeanor for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for more than sixty days. {¶ 19} "* * * {¶ 20} "(E) For purposes of computing time under divisions (A), (B), (C)(2), and (D) of this section, each day during which the accused is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge shall be counted as three days. This division does not apply for purposes of computing time under division (C)(1) of this section.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Baumgartner, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004)

3. ““In State v. MacDonald, supra, this court held that * * * [R.C. 2945.71(E)], the triple-count provision, was not applicable where the defendant had not been held solely on the pending charges and had not been held in lieu of bail solely on the pending charges. In the instant cause, appellee was not held solely on the pending criminal charges. He was also being held on the probation violation. Further, appellee was not held in lieu of bail on the pending criminal charges. Appellee did post bail on the criminal charges. This bail was, however, ineffectual because of the probation violation holder. Accordingly, we find that appellee was not entitled to the triple-count provision.” (Emphasis supplied in part.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 41 Ohio App. 3d 318 - State v. Bowman