State v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. White (2015), State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner's Office (Slip Opinion) (2017)
67 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 State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Wells · Lake County National Bank of Painesville v. Kosydar · Ritchey Produce Co. v. State
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Sexual Conduct' means vaginal intercourse between *Page 5 a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“everyday meaning of 'cavity' is 'a natural hollow place within the body,' " penetration into "the anal cavity occurs when some part of the body or any other item is inserted into the anus”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“there is sufficient evidence of anal intercourse, for purposes of the crime of anal rape under R.C. 2907.02 , where the trier of fact finds that the defendant penetrated, however slightly, the victim's anus with any part of the defendant's body, or with any instrument, apparatus, or other object. If the evidence shows that the defendant made contact only with the victim's buttocks, there is not sufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty of the crime of anal rape. As a corollary, where the evidence shows that the defendant attempts to penetrate the victim's anus, and, for whatever reason, fails to do so and makes contact only with the buttocks, there is sufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty of the crime of attempted anal rape.”
2 later decisions 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.