State v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Wolons (1989), State v. Cooey (1989)
11 federal appellate · 77 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 United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. · 109 Ohio St. 77 - Long v. State · 116 Ohio St. 495 - State v. Vargo
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The common law and statutory rule in American jurisprudence is that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any crime. Long v. State (1923), 109 Ohio St. 77 , 86 . An exception to the general rule has developed, where specific intent is a necessary element, that if the intoxication was such as to preclude the formation of such intent, the fact of intoxication may be shown to negative this element. See 8 A.L.R.3d 1236 , Modern Status of the Rules as to Voluntary Intoxication as Defense to Criminal Charge. In such a case, intoxication, although voluntary, may be considered in determining whether an act was done intentionally or with deliberation or premediation. State v. French (1961), 171 Ohio St. 501 , 502 , certiorari denied 366 U.S. 973 ." *Page 10 Further, in Brunty , we reasoned that "[t]he defense of intoxication may be utilized to negative the culpable mental state of acting "knowingly." Relying on State v. Norman (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 17 , 453 N.E.2d 1257 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) A person acts purposely when it is his specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is his specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘* * * [w]hen we admit evidence of intoxication to rebut ... a charge of deliberation and premeditation, ... we think we have gone far enough____’ * * * * * * Subsequent cases decided by this Court have recognized the appropriateness of a special jury charge on the effect of intoxication on formation of intent when that issue is properly raised by the evidence, (citation omitted). But this Court has never found it necessary to promulgate a rule to regulate judges in this matter ... This matter is best left to the discretion of the experienced trial judge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mann v. Gray
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.