State v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably State v. Johnson (2010), State v. Williams (2012)
2 federal appellate · 65 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. Logan · State v. Price · State v. Roberts · State v. Thomas · State v. Donald
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. (B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the *Page 10 indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“codified the judicial doctrine of merger, State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254 , and prohibited the `cumulative punishment of a defendant for the same criminal act where his conduct can be construed to constitute two statutory offenses, when, in substance and effect, only one offense has been committed.'”
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.