76 Ohio App. 3d 363 - State v. Duganitz’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 145 Md. App. 400 - Smith v. State (2002), State v. Whitaker, 07ca3168 (8-11-2008) (2008)
56 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 Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Jenks · 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · State v. Eley · State v. Kulig
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Circumstantial evidence' is the proof of certain facts and circumstances in a given case, from which the jury may infer other connected facts which usually and reasonably follow according to the common experience of mankind.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value[.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"The elements of carrying concealed weapons are: (1) no person shall (2) knowingly carry or have (3) concealed on his person or (4) concealed ready at hand (5) any deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance. The prosecution [in the instant case] did not prove the second element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, `knowingly carry or have.' The evidence on this element was purely circumstantial and did not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * There is nothing in the record that either establishes or creates a reasonable inference that the appellant [Duganitz] knowingly carried or had the gun, beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is created by a contemplation of competing constructions of the evidence. The appellant did not own the vehicle. The gun was found in a location between the passenger and driver even though somewhat closer to the driver. It was just as ready at hand to the passenger as the appellant. The passenger was left in the vehicle alone for approximately one minute and could have just as easily slid the gun under the blanket. There were no fingerprints or other scientific tests conducted that would have conclusively proven whether the appellant had the gun."”
2 later decisions 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.