72 Ohio App. 3d 16 - State v. Gladding’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Dehass · 2 Ohio App. 3d 50 - National City Bank v. Fleming · 11 Ohio App. 3d 46 - Village of Oakwood v. Makar · 32 Ohio St. 3d 109 - State v. Johnson
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) A defendant found incompetent to stand trial and committed pursuant to section 2945.39 of the Revised Code or a person found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed pursuant to section 2945.40 of the Revised Code shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the trial court pursuant to that commitment, and to the provisions of this section, until the final termination of the commitment as described in division (J)(1) of this section. * * * * * * (D)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (D)(2) of this section, when a defendant or person has been committed under section 2945.39 or 2945.40 of the Revised Code, at any time after evaluating the risks to public safety and the welfare of the defendant or person, the designee of the department of mental health and addiction services or the managing officer of the institution or director of the facility or program to which the defendant or person is committed may recommend a termination of the defendant's or person's commitment or a change in the conditions of the defendant's or person's commitment. * * * (G) In a hearing held pursuant to division (C) or (D)(1) of this section, the prosecutor has the burden of proof as follows: * * * (2) For a recommendation for a change in the conditions of the commitment to a less restrictive status, to show by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed change represents a threat to public safety or a threat to the safety of any person. (H) In a hearing held pursuant to division”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stutler
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.