85 Ohio App. 3d 785 - State v. Luff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 21 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. One accused of criminal conduct is not responsible for such criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he does not have the capacity either to know the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law .... 2. In order to establish the defense of insanity where raised by plea in a criminal proceeding, the accused must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that disease or other defect of his mind had so impaired his reason that, at the time of the criminal act with which he is charged, either he did not know that such act was wrong or he did not have the ability to refrain from doing that act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lundgren v. Mitchell · State v. Carreiro

2. “could involve different defenses at time of trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Clark, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2006) · State v. Johnson

3. “'In a criminal case, the accused is charged with violating a specific law, and the design of the insanity defense is to test whether he has the capacity to know that his conduct would violate the law.'”

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