State v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

232 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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Expungement is an act of grace created by the state,”

   25 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Matter of Proffitt, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2006) · State v. Cantrell, 06ca105 (7-17-2007)

2. “[T]he government possesses a substantial interest in ensuring that ex-pungement is granted only to those who are eligible. Expungement is accomplished by eliminating the general public’s access to conviction information. Accordingly, expungement should be granted only when an applicant meets all the requirements for eligibility set forth in R.C. 2953.32.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thompson · State v. V.M.D.

3. “(A) (1) * * * [A]n eligible offender may apply to the sentencing court * * * for the sealing of the conviction record. Application may be made at the expiration of three years after the offender’s final discharge if convicted of a felony, or at the expiration of one year after the offender’s final discharge if convicted of a misdemeanor. * * * (B) Upon the filing of an application under this section, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor for the case of the hearing on the application. The prosecutor may object to the granting of the application by filing an objection with the court prior to the date set for the hearing. The prosecutor shall specify in the objection the reasons for believing a denial of the application is justified. The court shall direct its regular probation officer, a state probation officer, or the department of probation of the county in which the applicant resides to make inquiries and written reports as the court requires concerning the applicant. * * * (C)(1) The court shall do each of the following : (a) Determine whether the applicant is an eligible offender * * *. (b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant; (c) If the applicant is an eligible offender * * *, determine whether the applicant has been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court; (d) If the prosecutor has filed an objection * * *, consider the reasons against granting the application specified by the prosecutor in t”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. The State Ex Rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, Judge · State v. Tschen, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2004)