Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 Ohio App. 3d 200 - State v. Jacks

63 Ohio App. 3d 200 - State v. Jacks’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Getsy (1998), State v. Frazier (1995)

81 state decisions

34019891990200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Dehass · Sandstrom v. Montana · State v. Maurer · State v. Smith

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

  1. “The admission or exclusion of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The causal responsibility of the defendant for an unlawful act is not limited to its immediate or most obvious result. He is responsible for the natural, logical and foreseeable results that follow in the ordinary course of events from an unlawful act. “The test for foreseeability was not whether the defendant should have foreseen the injury in its precise form or as to a specific person, the test is whether a reasonably prudent person in light of all the circumstances would have anticipated that the death was likely to result to anyone from the performance of the unlawful act.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The test for foreseeability is not whether the defendant should have foreseen the injury in its precise form or as to a specific person. The test is whether a reasonably prudent person in the light of all the circumstances would have anticipated that death or injury or physical harm was likely to result to anyone from the performance of the unlawful act or failure to act.”
    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.