6 Ohio App. 3d 19 - State v. Milo’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably State v. Carter (1995), 36 Ohio App. 3d 147 - State v. Blevins (1987)
32 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 Harrington v. California · State v. Thomas · State v. Osborne · State v. Weind · State v. Pearson
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * It is not necessary that the crime be proved independently of the testimony of the accomplice, or that the testimony of the accomplice be corroborated in every particular, but only that there be circumstantial evidence, or testimony of some other witness, tending to connect defendant with the crime and to prove some of the material facts testified to by the accomplice. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the existence of a conspiracy; (2) the defendant's participation in the conspiracy; (3)the declarant's participationin the conspiracy (4) that the statement was made during the course of the conspiracy; (5) that the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Banks“conspiracy exists where two or more persons plan or agree to commit a crime, coupled with an overt act substantial enough to show an intention to carry the conspiracy through to completion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Banks
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.