85 Ohio App. 3d 589 - State v. Jaschik’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2017
11 state decisions
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 Illinois v. Gates · Trammel v. United States · United States v. Crews · New York v. Harris · State v. George
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.
“[t]he purpose of Crim.R. 41(C) is to protect a defendant's rights against the introduction of oral evidence at a postseizure hearing on a motion to suppress intended 'to bolster the affidavits that probable cause existed for the issuance of a warrant.' And the requirement that supplemental testimony be 'recorded [and] made a part of the affidavit' serves the additional purpose of removing any concern that a reviewing court will have to guess about the actual statements made to the magistrate [or judge] issuing the warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dibble“taken down by a court reporter or recording equipment, transcribed, and made part of the affidavit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dibble“shall be admissible at a hearing on a motion to suppress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dibble
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.