State v. Shedrick’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 138 Ohio App. 3d 449 - State v. Hawn (2000), State v. Crotts (2004)
58 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 State v. Broom · State v. Curry · State v. Burson · State v. Flonnory · 130 Ohio St. 443 - Malone v. State
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "committed similar crimes within a period of time reasonably near to the offense on trial, and that a similar scheme, plan or system was utilized to commit both the offense at issue and the other crimes.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bass · State v. Wright“Evid.R. 404(B) and R.C. 2945.59 codify an exception to the common law. [ State v. Broom (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 277 , 281-282 , 533 N.E.2d 682 , 690 ]; State v. Burson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 157 , 158-159 , 67 O.O.2d 174, 175 , 311 N.E.2d 526 , 528 . In order to be admissible the `other act' evidence must `tend to show,' by substantial proof, the defendant's identity, plan, scheme, or system. Neither the statute nor the rule requires that the other act be `like' or `similar' to the crime charged, as long as the prior act tends to show one of the enumerated factors. Broom, supra, 40 Ohio St.3d at 282 , 533 N.E.2d at 690 ; State v. Flonnory (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 124 , 126 , 60 O.O.2d 95, 96-97 , 285 N.E.2d 726 , 729.”
3 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.