State v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1,223 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,249 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Wilson (2007), State v. Brown (2008)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1,223 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Weaver v. Graham · United States v. Halper · United States v. Harriss · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Flemming v. Nestor
Cited together with State v. Eppinger · State v. Williams · State v. Thompkins · Smith v. Doe · State v. Ferguson
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 1,249 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a person who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to committing a sexually oriented offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses.”
82 later decisions quote this exact passage“R.C. Chapter 2950 serves the solely remedial purpose of protecting the public. Thus, there is no clear proof that R.C. Chapter 2950 is punitive in its effect. We do not deny that the notification requirements may be a detriment to registrants, but the sting of public censure does not convert a remedial statute into a punitive one. Kurth Ranch , 511 U.S. at 777 , 114 S.Ct. at 1945 , 128 L.Ed.2d at 777 , fn. 14. Accordingly, we find that the registration and notification provisions of R.C. Chapter 2950 do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because its provisions serve the remedial purpose of protecting the public.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage“A regularly enacted statute of Ohio is presumed to be constitutional and is therefore entitled to the benefit of every presumption in favor of its constitutionality.”
20 later decisions 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.