State v. Hipkins’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably State v. Mason (1998), State v. Wolons (1989)
88 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. Edwards · Jordan v. Arizona · State v. Kehn · State v. Fox · Pokorny v. Local No. 310, International Hod Carriers Building & Common Laborers Union
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a long-standing rule of this court that we will not reverse a judgment because of the misconduct of a juror unless prejudice to the complaining party is shown.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A new trial may be granted for the misconduct of the jury where the substantial rights of the defendant have been materially affected. R.C. 2945.79 (B); Weis v. State (1872), 22 Ohio St. 486 . See, also, Crim. R. 33(A); R.C. 2945.79 (A). Conversations by a third person with a juror during the progress of a trial for the purpose of influencing the verdict may invalidate the verdict, but where there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the decision might have been influenced by such conversation, the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial will not be disturbed. State v. Higgins (1942), 70 Ohio App. 383 , 41 N.E.2d 1022 . * * * "It is a long-standing rule of this court that we will not reverse a judgment because of the misconduct of a juror unless prejudice to the complaining party is shown. Armleder v. Lieberman (1877), 33 Ohio St. 77 ." State v. Kehn (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 11 , 19 , 361 N.E.2d 1330”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is well settled that when a court has sustained objections to an inquiry during the examination in chief, a statement must be made as to what the expected answer would be in order that the reviewing court can determine whether or not the [ruling] is prejudicial.”
3 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.