Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 OHIOST3D 431 - State v. Nicholas

State v. Nicholas’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

284
cited by 284 later decisions
2
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

284 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 284 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Cook (1998), State v. Hunter (2011)

284 state decisions

10601993200020102020decided

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 · State v. Bradley · State v. Long · State v. Lytle · State v. Moreland

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

  1. “the failure to call an expert and instead rely on cross-examination does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the first step, the elements of the two crimes are compared. If the elements of the offenses correspond to such a degree that the commission of one crime will result in the commission of the other, the crimes are allied offenses of similar import and the court must then proceed to the second step. In the second step, the defendant’s conduct is reviewed to determine whether the defendant can be convicted of both offenses. If the court finds either that the crimes were committed separately or that there was a separate animus for each crime, the defendant may be convicted of both offenses.” (Emphasis sic and citations omitted.)”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““(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 indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.””
    5 later decisions 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.