Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 Ohio App. 2d 283 - State v. Glover

60 Ohio App. 2d 283 - State v. Glover’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Dyer v. Calderon (1998), State v. Burnett (2001)

3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

80197819801990200020102020decided

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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Ker v. State of California · Harris v. United States · United States v. Gray · 51 Ohio App. 2d 204 - State v. Mandich

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

  1. ““The record before us supports the state’s contention that the officers were lawfully in the place where they observed certain contraband in plain view. The nature of the contraband as such must have surely suggested to prudent police officers the probability that the existence of scales, measuring devices, straining spoons, etc., were not the instruments used by a consumer of the hallucinogen or drug but were rather the tools of one engaged in trafficking in this illicit contraband. The officer’s view in the closet was permitted by the appellant and the copying down of the camera’s serial number on the shelf in the closet was, in our opinion, good police practice. It is well known that one who traffics in illicit drugs is often the recipient of stolen goods by the barter system.” 60 Ohio App. 2d at 287 , 396 N.E.2d at 1067-1068 .”
    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.