81 Ohio App. 3d 210 - State v. King’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(A) No person, with purpose to defraud, or knowing that he is facilitating a fraud, shall do any of the following: “(1) Forge any writing of another without his authority; "(2) Forge any writing so that it purports to be genuine when it is actually spurious, or to be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or to have been executed at a time or place or with terms different from what was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original when no such original existed; "(C)(1) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of forgery, a felony of the fourth degree.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 Ohio App. 3d 504 - State v. Sufronko

2. ““If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 Ohio App. 3d 504 - State v. Sufronko