State v. Lilliock’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
147 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Schlee (2008), State v. Hill (1994)
147 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 Fuentes v. Shevin · State v. Wolery · United States v. Lane Motor Co. · Saunders v. Clark County Zoning Department · 141 Ohio St. 535 - City of Cincinnati v. Correll
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(C) A person loses any right he may have to the possession, or the possession and ownership, of property if any of the following applies: (1) The property was the subject, or was used in a conspiracy or attempt to commit, or in the commission, of an offense other than a traffic offense, and the person is a conspirator, accomplice, or offender with respect to the offense. (2) A court determines that the property should be forfeited because, in light of the nature of the property or the circumstances of the person, it is unlawful for the person to acquire or possess the property.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[S]tatutes imposing restrictions upon the use of private property, in derogation of private property rights, must be strictly construed. Whenever possible, such statutes must be construed so as to avoid a forfeiture of property. No forfeiture may be ordered unless the expression of the law is clear and the intent of the legislature manifest.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although R.C. 2933.41 is not a forfeiture statute, deprivation of defendant's right to possession of his vehicle is as onerous as if the state had declared a forfeiture. This court must construe R.C. 2933.41 strictly, keeping in mind the principle that forfeitures are not favored in law or equity.”
2 later decisions 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.