State v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Wogenstahl (1996), State v. Ballew (1996)
60 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Doyle v. Ohio · State v. Bradley · State v. Dehass
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a tactical decision made by defense counsel to prevent the state from splitting closing argument and staging a strong rebuttal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frierson · State v. Dilo“ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I: THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION LIMITING THE EFFECT OF SIGNIFICANT NEW EVIDENCE TO ONE COUNT AND THEREBY GRANTING A NEW TRIAL ON ONLY ONE COUNT, WHILE LEAVING THE REMAINING COUNTS IN PLACE, IS WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED BY THE LAW AND THE FACTS, IS ILLOGICAL, AND DENIES BURKE DUE PROCESS, A FAIR TRIAL, THE RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH , SIXTH , EIGHTH , AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I , §§ 2 , 10 AND 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II: THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION THAT IN THE FACE OF A NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE, A COURT CAN UNMERGE AND RESURRECT A MERGED COUNT, ORDER A SENTENCING HEARING ON THE RESURRECTED COUNT AND AT THE SAME TIME SET A NEW TRIAL ON THE UNMERGED COUNT, VIOLATES DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND R.C. 2941.25 IGNORES CASE LAW ON MERGER AND ELECTION AND DEFIES LOGIC. THIS DECISION VIOLATES THE FIFTH , SIXTH , EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * Intent need not be proven by direct testimony. State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 168 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , 302 . Instead, an intent to kill "may be deduced from the surrounding circumstances, including the instrument used, its tendency to destroy life if designed for that purpose, and the manner of inflicting the wound." State v. Robinson (1954), 161 Ohio St. 213 , 218-219 , 53 O.O. 96 , 99 , 118 N.E.2d 517 , 521 .”
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.