Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 OHIOST2D 452 - State v. Slatter

State v. Slatter’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
4
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers (1984), State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin County Court of Appeals (2008)

60 state decisions

22019811990200020102020decided

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 Krause v. State · Gregory v. Flowers · State v. Sinito · Boyer v. Boyer · State v. Wallace

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

  1. “[r]ules promulgated pursuant to this constitutional provision must be procedural in nature.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘The distinction between substantive and procedural law is artificial and illusory. In essence, there is none. The remedy and predetermined machinery, so far as the litigant has a recognized claim to use it, are, legally speaking, part of the right itself. A right without a remedy for its violation is a command without a sanction, a brutern fulmen, i.e., no law at all. While it may be convenient to distinguish between the right or liability, the remedy or penalty by which it is enforced, on the one hand, and the machinery by which the remedy is applied to the right, on the other, i.e.; between substantive law and procedural law, it should not be forgotten that so far as either is law at all, it is the litigant’s right to insist upon it, i.e., it is part of his right. In other words, it is substantive law.’ ” Id., quoting Chamberlayne, Modern Law of Evidence (1911) 217.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Boyer v. Boyer (1976), 46 Ohio St 2d 83, 86 [25 0.0 2d 156], Conversely, a rule may not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and a statute will control a rule on matters of substantive law. Id. State v Slatter (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 452, 454 [20 0.0. 3d 383.”
    1 later decision 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.