Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 OHIOST3D 253 - State v. Raglin

State v. Raglin’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
1
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 84 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably State v. Madrigal (2000), State v. Issa (2001)

2 federal appellate · 84 state decisions

5301998200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Batson v. Kentucky · Edwards v. Arizona · State v. Lott · State v. Smith

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

  1. “[t]he jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[e]ven though an offense may be statutorily defined as a lesser included offense of another, a charge on such lesser included offense is required only where the evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the lesser included offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the sentencing provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 apply only to those crimes committed on or after July 1, 1996. See State v. Rush (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53 , 697 N.E.2d 634 ; State v. Raglin (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 253 , 259-260 , 699 N.E.2d 482 , 489.”
    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.