State v. Liberatore’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 202 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State v. Lott (1990), State v. Sage (1987)
8 federal appellate · 202 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. Jorn · United States v. Dinitz · Wisconsin v. Illinois · State v. Stephens · State v. Diehl
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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the prosecution is entitled to a certain degree of latitude in summation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Even if the state could have legitimately claimed it was surprised by Mata's testimony, it was improper for the trial court to allow the extended questioning of Mata. As this court held in State v. Dinsio (1964), 176 Ohio St. 460 : "`* * * [I]t is error prejudicial to the defendant for the court to permit counsel for the state, by continued questioning of the witness, which questions go unanswered, to get before the jury innuendoes and inferences of facts, conditions, and circumstances which the state could not get before the jury by direct testimony of the witness.` "Although Dinsio was predicated upon the witness' assertion of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, there is no reason to distinguish it from the present case. The underlying rationale still applies: It is improper for the state to attempt to prove its case by suggestion rather than evidence." Id. at 587-588 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Retrial for the same offense after reversal of a prior conviction on appeal does not constitute a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting double jeopardy. See Foran v. Maxwell (1962), 173 Ohio St. 561 , 563; Sutcliffe v. State (1849), 18 Ohio St. 469 ; United States v. Smith (C.A. 6,1978), 584 F. 2d 759, 761 , certiorari denied 441 U.S. 992 . A reversal of a judgment in a criminal case merely places the state and the defendant in the same position as they were in before trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sage
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.