Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 Ohio App. 3d 141 - State v. McCornell

91 Ohio App. 3d 141 - State v. McCornell’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably 95 Ohio App. 3d 39 - State v. Wong (1994), 149 Ohio App. 3d 318 - State v. Pierson (2002)

26 state decisions

180199320002010decided

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 State v. Jamison · State v. Thomas · State v. Kidder · State v. Coleman · State v. Smith

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

  1. “Even though an offense may be statutorily defined as a lesser included offense of another, a charge on such lesser included offense is required only where the evidence presented at trial would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the lesser included offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “intent to commit a crime within the occupied structures he entered. Since there was no direct evidence of such specific intent, it was necessary for the state to establish appellant's intent through circumstantial evidence. In our view, none of the evidence or testimony in this case was improperly admitted, since it was relevant to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A person acts negligently when, because of a substantial lapse from due care, he fails to perceive or avoid a risk that his conduct may cause a certain result or may be of a certain nature. A person is negligent with respect to circumstances when because of a substantial lapse from due care, he fails to perceive or avoid a risk that such circumstances may exist.”
    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.