Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 Ohio App. 3d 499 - State v. Houseman

70 Ohio App. 3d 499 - State v. Houseman’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably State v. Elmore (2006), 85 Ohio App. 3d 179 - Park v. Ambrose (1993)

35 state decisions

2601990200020102020decided

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. Dehass · C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. · State v. Kidder · Ohio v. Wilkins · State v. Price

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It would not have been reasonable for the jury to find against the state on the element of purpose to deprive the owner of property. It is evident from the events occurring that appellant intended to use the truck to escape. The fact that he was unsuccessful in using the . . . truck to escape because he wrecked it in the attempt does not mean the jury could have reasonably determined this element of the offense was not proven by the state.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “if the jury could not reasonably find against the state on an element of the crime, then a charge on a lesser-included offense is not only not required but is also improper.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “`[i]n a prosecution for theft under R.C. 2913.02 , the least removing of an item with an intent to deprive the owner of it is a sufficient asportation, though the property is not removed from the premises of the owner nor retained in the possession of the defendant.'”
    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.