Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 OHIOST2D 129 - State v. Hoffman

State v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
2
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Reeder (1985), Goodwin ex rel. Nall v. City of Painesville (2015)

3 federal appellate · 73 state decisions

230197919801990200020102020decided

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 Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Cohen v. California · Terminiello v. Chicago · Gooding v. Wilson

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

  1. “"(a) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another by doing any of the following: "(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior; "(2) Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person, which by its very utterance or usage inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; "(3) Insulting, taunting or challenging another, under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to provoke a violent response.””
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A person may not be punished under R.C. 2917.11 (A) (2) for "recklessly caus[ing] inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another," by making an "offensively coarse utterance," or "communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person," unless the words spoken are likely, by their very utterance, to inflict injury or provoke the average person to an immediate retaliatory breach of the peace. [Emphasis added.]”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender; {¶ 16}”
    2 later decisions 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.