Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 OHIOST2D 87 - State v. Hankerson

State v. Hankerson’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

699
cited by 699 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 696 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 699 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Nicely (1988), Criss v. City of Kent (1988)

3 federal appellate · 696 state decisions

285019821990200020102020decided

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. Wolery · State v. Kulig · Commonwealth v. Davis · 147 Ohio St. 263 - State v. Nevius · State v. Graven

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

  1. “[i]t must also be shown that the person was conscious of the presence of the object.”
    68 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]n accordance with Hankerson , the jury was entitled to infer from [Appellant's] dominion and control of the premises and the facts of normal home occupancy that he had knowledge that the illegal drugs were in his [residence].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Whether a theory of innocence is reasonable must be determined in view of the weight and credibility that the fact finder gives the evidence, and an appellate court can reverse a conviction based in part on circumstantial evidence only where the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to enable the fact finder to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Hankerson (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 87, 92 , 24 O.O. 3d 155, 158, 434 N.E. 2d 1362, 1366 .”
    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.