70 Ohio App. 2d 35 - State v. Doles’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2013
23 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 40 Ohio App. 2d 380 - State v. Wilcox · 46 Ohio App. 2d 115 - State v. Shelt · City of Akron v. Gray · 59 Ohio App. 495 - Strain v. Isaacs
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ 1. In order for judicial notice to be taken, the fact must be one of common knowledge throughout the jurisdiction of the court. “2. Where there is no testimony as to the construction and method of operation of a speed measuring device not the subject of judicial notice, the testimony of the user that he operated the device as instructed is insufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding.” (Emphasis sic.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““While other courts have taken judicial notice of the dependability of moving radar units, State v. Shelt (1976), 46 Ohio App. 2d 115 , and Akron v. Gray (1979), 60 Ohio Misc. 68 , an examination of those cases indicates that the prosecution presented significant expert testimony before the trial court in both cases to establish the construction and method of operation of the mobile radar units. The language in those opinions indicates that judicial notice of the fact that the mobile radar units in question are dependable for their proposed purpose was established for future cases within those jurisdictions. The fact that other jurisdictions have taken judicial notice of the dependability of mobile radar units for future cases within those respective jurisdictions is only persuasive evidence in this jurisdiction. Those decisions cannot serve as a proper basis for judicial notice in this jurisdiction.” State v. Doles (1980), 70 Ohio App. 2d 35, 38 , 24 O.O. 3d 25, 27, 433 N.E. 2d 1290, 1292 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A] defendant may not be convicted of speeding solely upon evidence obtained from a radar speed meter device mounted in a moving patrol car in the absence of expert testimony with respect to the construction of the device and its method of operation with respect to its ability to differentiate the speed of a vehicle approaching the moving patrol car from the opposite direction from the combined speed at which they are moving toward each other." Such evidence goes toward establishing the dependability of a radar speed meter device mounted in a moving patrol car.”
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.