State v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 1997
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Eli v. State · Stuart v. State · 60 Ohio App. 2d 355 - State v. Davis · State v. Gortmaker · Territory v. Scharsch
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Djenial of public access to the [grand jury] selection process is presumptively prejudicial and therefore does not require a specific showing of prejudice. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a defendant to point to a specific injury where he has been excluded from the impanelment proceedings. Public access to the impanelment process goes to the heart of safeguarding the integrity of the grand jury. To require the defendant to prove a personal injury would impair or destroy the safeguard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Chong
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.