Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 OHIOST3D 126 - State v. Moaning

State v. Moaning’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Fisher v. Hasenjager (2007), Summerville v. City of Forest Park (2010)

38 state decisions

2101996200020102020decided

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 Shover v. Cordis Corp. · State v. Hill · Wooster Republican Printing Co. v. City of Wooster · 74 Ohio App. 3d 824 - State v. Lofties

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

  1. “It is a well-settled rule of statutory interpretation that statutory provisions be construed together and the Revised Code be read as an interrelated body of law.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[s]tatutes which relate to the same subject are in pari materia. Although enacted at different times and making no reference to each other, they should be read together to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent.”
    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.