State v. Unger’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1,304 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,304 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Landrum (1990), State v. Mason (1998)
1,304 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 Ungar v. Sarafite · Cardwell v. Lewis · California v. Civil Aeronautics Board · Midgett v. Slayton · American Trading Transportation Co. v. Escobar
Cited together with Blakemore v. Blakemore · Ungar v. Sarafite · Strickland v. Washington · State v. Thompkins · State v. Bradley
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 1,304 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The grant or denial of a continuance is a matter which is entrusted to the broad, sound discretion of the trial judge. An appellate court must not reverse the denial of a continuance unless there has been an abuse of discretion.”
146 later decisions quote this exact passage“Id. at ¶ 23. In this case, father never obtained the stable housing or the drug treatment required by the case plan, thereby contributing to the circumstances giving rise to the request for a continuance. Although he had made some efforts at treatment and housing over the previous two years, he did not obtain the success or stability required by the case plan. At that point, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by prioritizing the welfare of the children.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re A.L.““We summarily reject appellant’s argument that his confession should be suppressed because he was transported from Darke County to Miami County in contravention of R.C. 2935.14. * * * Assuming, without deciding, that R.C. 2935.14 supersedes Crim. R. 4(E)(2) and was violated, this, by itself would not be sufficient to invoke the exclusionary rule. ” Id. at 69-70. (Emphasis added.)”
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.