State v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. Taylor (1997), State v. Fears (1999)
6 federal appellate · 95 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. Cotton · State v. Woods · State v. Ware · State v. Dick · 134 Ohio St. 16 - State v. Duffy
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person is under `detention' as that term is used in R.C. 2921.34 , when he is arrested and the arresting officer has established control over his person.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party except that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by the party calling the witness by means of a prior inconsistent statement only upon a showing of surprise and affirmative damage. This exception does not apply to statements admitted pursuant to Rules 801(D)(1)(a), 801(D)(2), or 803.” (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A)(1) No person, knowing the person is under detention or being reckless in that regard, shall purposely break or attempt to break the detention, or purposely fail to return to detention, either following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period, or at the time required when serving a sentence in intermittent confinement. {¶ 85} "* * * ¶ 86} "(B) Irregularity in bringing about or maintaining detention, or lack of jurisdiction of the committing or detaining authority, is not a defense to a charge under this section if the detention is pursuant to judicial order or in a detention facility. In the case of any other detention, irregularity or lack of jurisdiction is an affirmative defense only if either of the following occurs: {¶ 87} "(1) The escape involved no substantial risk of harm to the person or property of another. {¶ 88} "(2) The detaining authority knew or should have known there was no legal basis or authority for the detention . . .”
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.