Houser v. Manning’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
December 2004
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Ayala · 390 So. 2d 717 - State v. Arthur · Mello v. Superior Court · 57 Ohio St. 3d 11 - State v. Holmes · 654 So. 2d 573 - Merdian v. Cochran
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we agree with Houser that a trial court has the authority to revoke a defendant's bond under pretrial release rules allowing arrest and recommitment for bond violations, and pursuant to the court's inherent power to enforce its own orders, we disagree that a trial court has the absolute discretion to deny bond unless a defendant meets the criteria for detention without bond under the pretrial detention statutes. By breaching a condition of the bond originally set by the court, a defendant forfeits the right to continued release under the terms of that bond. However, the defendant does not forfeit his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to bail altogether, a refusal to readmit a defendant to any bail at all must be subject to the limitations of the pretrial detention statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“from the time of arrest until trial. The legislative intent set forth at section 907.041 states: It is the policy of this state that persons committing serious criminal offenses, posing a threat to the safety of the community or the integrity of the judicial process, or failing to appear at trial be detained upon arrest. (Italics supplied). The statute's reference to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.