Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 OHIOST3D 136 - State v. Pembaur

State v. Pembaur’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), Cummings v. City of Akron (2005)

13 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

20019841990200020102020decided

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 City of Columbus v. Fraley

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

  1. “In altering the common-law rule granting a person the right to resist an unlawful arrest, the Fraley court deemed it preferable, considering the crunch of modem society, to resolve questions concerning the legality of police conduct in the courts through peaceful means rather than on the street in potentially violent confrontation. Fraley is determinative in the present case. Although defendant may well successfully challenge the use against him of any evidence obtained by the deputies in their search for defendant’s employees, defendant was not privileged to physically impede the deputies in their attempt to locate the subjects of the capiases.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(A) No person without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within his official capacity shall do any act which hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of his lawful duties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A warrantless entry ... may quite possibly result in the exclusion of pertinent incriminating evidence observed in such entry, and the showing of unreasonable conduct by a law enforcement officer may well provide a privilege to resist the entry by the occupant. Nevertheless, absent bad faith on the part of a law enforcement officer, an occupant ... cannot obstruct the officer in the discharge of his duty, whether or not the officer’s actions are lawful under the circumstances.”
    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.