83 Ohio App. 3d 341 - State v. Kincaid’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The courts must give criminal statutes their intended meaning and the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the legislature intended the word ‘operating’ to have broad meaning. Simply put, some conduct which is not driving is operating. “However, this also means that some conduct which is not driving is not operating either. For example, an intoxicated person sitting in a motor vehicle, waiting for the designated driver to come and drive him home, would not be operating a motor vehicle. Or, a driver who realizes he is under the influence and elects to sleep it off rather than attempt to drive home would not be operating. Thus, to give the statute its legislative intent, a court must not only decide what is operating, it is just as important to decide what is not operating. “In summary, the cases cited stand for these propositions. If a person is drunk, but awake, and is engaged in conduct within the broad scope of the word ‘operating,’ he is guilty of operating a motor vehicle under the influence. * * * If a person is drunk and asleep with the keys in the ignition and the motor running, he is guilty of operating under the influence. * * * If a person is drunk and asleep with the keys in the ignition and the motor is not running, he is guilty of operating under the influence. * * * However, if a person is drunk, asleep in a motor vehicle, with no key in the ignition, and there is no evidence of any conduct which might be included within the broad category of operation, he is not g”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 Ohio App. 3d 221 - State v. Shrader

2. ““Operation of a motor vehicle within the contemplation of the statute is a broader term than mere driving and a person in the driver’s position in the front seat with the ignition key in his possession indicating either his actual or potential movement of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse can be found in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A).” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 127 Ohio App. 3d 328 - State v. Long

3. ““[I]f a person is drunk, asleep in a motor vehicle, with no key in the ignition, and there is no evidence of any conduct which might be included within the broad category of operation, he is not guilty of drunk driving.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 Ohio App. 3d 221 - State v. Shrader