69 Ohio App. 3d 150 - State v. Parks’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2024
21 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 Strickland v. Washington · Ungar v. Sarafite · State v. Unger · State v. Bridgeman · State v. Edwards
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [W]hether the prosecution's failure was a willful violation of Crim. R. 16, (2) whether foreknowledge of the evidence would have benefitted the accused in the preparation of his defense, and (3) whether the accused was prejudiced by the evidence concerned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If a party fails to comply with the requirements of discovery, the court may order the party to permit discovery [or] grant a continuance * * *. A continuance * * * is a favored method to avoid prejudice which may flow from a failure to provide discovery * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A continuance, upon proper motion, is a favored method to avoid prejudice which may flow from a failure to provide discovery yet ensure that the charges against an accused *Page 6 are tried timely and fairly.”
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.