Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 OHIOST2D 132 - State v. Flynt

State v. Flynt’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

119 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Getsy (1998), State v. LaMar (2002)

119 state decisions

42019801990200020102020decided

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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Oyler v. Boles · Snowden v. Hughes · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer

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

  1. “(1) that, while others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for prosecution, and (2) that the government's discriminatory selection of him for prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights * * *.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Selective enforcement may be justified when the meaning or constitutionality of the law is in doubt and a test case is needed to clarify the law or to establish its validity. Selective enforcement may also be justified when a striking example or a few examples are sought in order to deter other violators, as part of a bona fide rational pattern of general enforcement, in the expectation that general compliance will follow and that further prosecutions will be unneces sary. It is only when the selective enforcement is designed to discriminate against the persons prosecuted, without any intention to follow it up by general enforcement against others, that a constitutional violation may be found.”
    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.