6 Ohio App. 3d 1 - State v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Maurer (1984), State v. Grubb (1986)
100 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 Gault · 47 Ohio App. 2d 221 - State v. Spahr · Corbett v. Bordenkircher · 21 Ohio App. 2d 207 - State v. Hale · State v. Russell
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“«* * * ^n or¿er in nm{ne is a tentative or presumptive evidence ruling which states the court’s anticipated treatment of an evidentiary issue if special circumstances do not cause a different treatment when the issue actually arises. * * * [Citations omitted.] It cannot be a definitive ruling on an evidence issue until the full context and foundation for the issue has been developed.* * * ((* * * “Therefore, in order to preserve supposed error from an anticipatory order in limine, the complaining party must raise the evidentiary issue on the record at the place in the trial that the foundation and context has actually been developed. Such an anticipatory order is a salutary procedure, because it guides counsel’s expectancies in potentially complicated areas and it prevents the controversy from reaching the jurors. Thus, any proffer of the presumptively proscribed evidence must be done outside the jury’s hearing, unless and until the trial court concludes that the evidence is not properly admissible. “If counsel seeks to develop the proscribed material during direct examination or through an exhibit, that counsel must make an ‘offer of proof' outside the jury’s hearing, when the evidence”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Although the General Assembly may enact legislation to effectuate its policy of protecting the confidentiality of juvenile records, such enactment may not impinge upon the right of a defendant in a criminal case to present all available, relevant and probative evidence which is pertinent to a specific and material aspect of his defense. The record at bar does not reflect an effort to conduct a fishing expedition into the witness' juvenile background, nor an attempt to impeach her by a general showing of prior Juvenile Court appearances as the result of misconduct." Id. at 204 . See, also, State v. White (1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 1, 2 . ("Evid. R. 609(D) and R.C. 2151.358(H) clearly exclude use of a juvenile court adjudication about a juvenile's conduct, for purposes of general impeachment of a witness' credibility. They do not necessarily limit the use of such circumstances for other valid purposes. * * *")”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"* * * The disposition of a child under the judgment rendered or any evidence given in court is not admissible as evidence against the child in any other case or proceeding in any other court *”
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.