Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 OHIOST3D 3 - State v. Sneed

State v. Sneed’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

218
cited by 218 later decisions
1
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 212 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 218 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably State v. Getsy (1998), 79 Ohio App. 3d 667 - State v. Caldwell (1992)

5 federal appellate · 212 state decisions

7101992200020102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Matlock

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

  1. ““We have previously stated that ‘it is prejudicial error in a criminal case to refuse to administer a requested charge which is pertinent to the case, states the law correctly, and is not covered by the general charge.’ State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92, 101 , 26 OBR 79, 87, 497 N.E.2d 55, 63 .””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If upon the poll there is not unanimous concurrence, the jury may be directed to retire for further deliberation or may be discharged.”
    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.