82 Ohio App. 3d 354 - State v. Vogelsong’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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. “[T]he overbreadth doctrine applies only to First Amendment and other fundamental right issues and has no application to statutes such as the one in question prohibiting Medicaid fraud. See paragraph three of the syllabus of Cincinnati v. Hoffman (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 163 , 60 0.0.2d 117, 285 N.E.2d 714 . In other words, even though application of the statute might be unconstitutional with respect to persons making innocent false or misleading statements in connection with Medicaid reimbursement without intent to gain any advantage thereby, defendants are not entitled to rely upon that issue so long as the statute is not unconstitutional as applied to them. See, .also, State v. Van Dyne (1985), 26 Ohio App.3d 95 , 26 OBR 270, 498 N.E.2d 221 ; and State v. Loless (1986), 31 Ohio App.3d 5 , 31 OBR 19, 507 N.E.2d 1140 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith