87 Ohio App. 3d 290 - State v. Simmons’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2019
7 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 California v. Trombetta · Weatherford v. Bursey · State v. Landrum · Laughlin v. Internal Revenue Service · Midland Steel Products Co. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 486
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he language of Crim.R. 16 does not suggest that the rule was intended to be an all-encompassing declaration of the entire scope of permissible pretrial discovery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wallace“it is generally accepted that it is within the trial court's discretion to grant any discovery beyond the scope of that required by Crim. R. 16.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“articulate a reasonable, factual basis as to why he believes the records are exculpatory.”
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.