State v. Wac’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Horner (2010), State v. Lozier (2004)
76 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 Alderman v. United States · United States v. Watson · DiTommaso v. United States · 148 Ohio St. 473 - State v. Petro · Worthington v. United States
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When the section defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the conduct described in such section, then culpability is not required for a person to be guilty of the offense. When the section neither specifies culpability nor plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability, recklessness is sufficient culpability to commit the offense.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) No person, being the owner or lessee, or having custody, control, or supervision of premises, shall: (1) Use or occupy such premises for gambling in violation of section 2915.02 of the Revised Code; (2) Recklessly permit such premises to be used or occupied for gambling in violation of section 2915.02 of the Revised Code.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[n]o person shall do any of the following: (1) Engage in bookmaking, or knowingly engage in conduct that facilitates bookmaking.”
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.