State v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Mughni (1987), State v. Chandler (2006)
2 federal appellate · 62 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 State v. Wilson · State v. Scott · 55 Ohio App. 2d 178 - State v. Mosley · 24 Ill. 2d 188 - The People v. Lott · Shanks v. Commonwealth
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Triers of fact should consider the totality of circumstances and decide whether, in a particular scenario, there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has knowingly offered to sell a controlled substance. For example, the dialogue and course of conduct of the accused, as well as the nature of the goods transferred, may be relevant to this determination. Individually, no aspect of any of these examples is the ultimate fact. Collectively, they may or may not prove that the accused knowingly offered to sell a controlled substance.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] person can be convicted for offering to sell a controlled substance in violation of R.C. 2925.03 (A)(1) without actually transferring a controlled substance to the buyer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`Knowingly' is an adverb which modifies the verb `offer.' R.C. 2901.22 (B) defines `knowingly'; and, * * * `offer' is a common word which does not require statutory definition. It is clear on the face of the statute that a culpable mental state must exist with respect to the act of offering. See R.C. 2901.22 (B). One's understanding of the nature of the substance does not necessarily determine whether he or she knowingly offered to sell a controlled substance. We will not *Page 9 read the additional element of knowledge of the nature of the substance into R.C. 2925.03 (A)(1), (5) or (7).”
2 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.