78 Ohio App. 3d 709 - State v. McCallion’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Are the constitutional and the unconstitutional parts capable of separation so that each may be read and may stand by itself? (2) Is the unconstitutional part so connected with the general scope of the whole as to make it impossible to give effect to the apparent intention of the Legislature if the clause or part is stricken out? (3) Is the insertion of words or terms necessary in order to separate the constitutional part from the unconstitutional part, and to give effect to the former only?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 6 F. Supp. 2d 700 - Duryee v. United States Department of the Treasury

2. “it is impossible to address the issue of whether the statute was unconstitutionally applied to appellant, as there is nothing in the record that provides a factual predicate for purposes of review. Thus, appellant has not demonstrated this particular asserted error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Tomko, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2005)