57 Ohio App. 3d 66 - Kettering v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2024
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 Roe v. Wade · 32 Ohio App. 2d 54 - State v. Conley · 92 Ill. App. 3d 288 - People v. Krizka · Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage · 93 Ill. App. 3d 101 - People v. Stiso
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the harm must be committed under pressure of physical or natural force, rather than human force; (2) the harm sought to be avoided is greater than, or at least equal to, that sought to be prevented by the law defining offense charged; (3) the actor reasonably believes at that moment that his act is necessary and is designed to avoid the greater harm; (4) the actor must be without fault in bringing about the situation; and (5) the harm threatened must be imminent, leaving no alternative by which to avoid the greater harm.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Through judicial decision and legislative determination denying abortion recognition as a harm, the law has preempted the central inquiry of the necessity defense: whether the activity sought to be stopped or the criminal conduct employed to stop it is the ‘greater harm.’ By denying abortion classification as a harm the law has determined that the greater harm per se is in the criminal conduct. The defense of necessity which has been created by the law may not, therefore, be employed to justify or excuse it.” Kettering v. Berry, 57 Ohio App. 3d at 68-69 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following: {¶ 25} "(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.