State v. Kinley’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably State v. Madrigal (2000), State v. Smith (1997)
78 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 United States v. Edwards · State v. Apanovitch · State v. Waddy · State v. Moreland · State v. Post
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under [the plain view] doctrine, an officer may seize an item without a warrant if the initial intrusion leading to the item's discovery was lawful and it was `immediately apparent' that the item was incriminating.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[9.] The jury verdict for guilt on the offense of aggravated burglary was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 183} "[10.] The jury's determination that defendant was guilty of felonious assault was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 184} "[11.] The determination that the defendant was guilty of domestic violence was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 185} "[13.] The court improperly imposed consecutive sentences upon the defendant. {¶ 186} "[Supplemental 4.] The trial court's imposition of a sentence greater than the minimum term permitted by statute based upon findings not made by a jury nor admitted by appellant is contrary to law and violates appellant's right to a trial by jury and due process, as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Proposition of Law XXV[:] The Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 2, 9, 10, 16 and 20 of the Ohio Constitution establish the requirements for a valid death penalty scheme. Ohio's statutory provisions governing the imposition of the death penalty, contained in Ohio Revised Code Sections 2903.01, 2929.02, 2929.021, 2929.022, 2929.023, 2929.03, 2929.04 and 2929.05 do not meet the prescribed requirements and thus are unconstitutional, both on their face and as applied to appellant Kinley.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kinley
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.