← 86 Ohio App. 3d 37 - State v. Williams

86 Ohio App. 3d 37 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

1,040

cited by 1,040 later decisions

states following

February 2026

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1,038 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,040 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 126 Ohio App. 3d 95 - State v. Lloyd (1998), 137 Ohio App. 3d 847 - State v. Johnson (2000)

2 federal appellate · 1,038 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 Terry v. Ohio · State v. Fanning · State v. Mills · State v. Andrews · State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges

Cited together with State v. Fanning · 95 Ohio App. 3d 93 - State v. Curry · 73 Ohio App. 3d 486 - State v. Klein · Ornelas v. United States · 85 Ohio App. 3d 623 - State v. Claytor

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 1,040 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Hodge, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2005) · State v. Bishop
“`[i]n a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court assumes the role of trier of facts and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate the credibility of witnesses.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Cline, Unpublished Decision (11-5-2003) · State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (12-30-2003)
“(A) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic ***, the following rules apply: (1) A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic and shall not be moved from such lane or Licking County, Case No. 15 CA 6 5 line until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety. ***.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Adams

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.