State v. Heins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “(C) An officer, while on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing traffic laws, arresting or assisting in the arrest of a person charged with a traffic violation punishable as a misdemeanor where the officer at the time of the arrest was not using a properly marked motor vehicle as defined by statute or was not wearing a legally distinctive uniform as defined by statute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lumpkin, Unpublished Decision (10-13-2006) · State v. Heins

2. “Through the enactment of these statutes, the legislature demonstrated an intent to provide uniformity in traffic control and regulation in an effort to make driving safer within Ohio's political subdivisions. Dayton v. Adams (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 89 , 38 O.O.2d 223 , 223 N.E.2d 822 . `It requires little imagination to contemplate the unfortunate consequences should a frightened motorist believe that he [or she] was being forced off the road by a stranger. The General Assembly sought to avoid such mischief by requiring police officers on traffic duty to be identified clearly.' Columbus v. Murchison (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 75 , 76 , 21 OBR 79 , 81 , 486 N.E.2d 236 , 238 . In addition to issues of safety and public welfare, the legislature also adopted R.C. 4549.13 through 4549.16 in an attempt to curb the use of speed traps within municipalities. See Adams, 9 Ohio St.2d at 90 , 38 O.O.2d at 224 , 223 N.E.2d at 824 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lumpkin, Unpublished Decision (10-13-2006)

3. “Any motor vehicle used by a member of the state highway patrol or by any other peace officer, while said officer is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, shall be marked in some distinctive manner or color and shall be equipped with, but need not necessarily have in operation at all times, at least one flashing, oscillating, or rotating colored light mounted outside on top of the vehicle. The superintendent of the state highway patrol shall specify what constitutes such a distinctive marking or color for the state highway patrol.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Heins