92 Ohio App. 3d 539 - State v. Montes’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2025
19 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 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · State v. Dehass · Tibbs v. Florida · State v. Long · State v. Eley
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the holding in Lakewood v. Papadelis (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 1 * * *, paragraph two of the syllabus, that `[a] trial court must inquire into the circumstances surrounding a discovery rule violation and, when deciding whether to impose a sanction, must impose the least severe sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the rules of discovery,' should not be construed to mean that the exclusion of testimony or evidence is never a permissible sanction in a criminal case. It is only when the exclusion acts to completely deny the defendant his or her constitutional right to present a defense that the sanction is impermissible. State v. Harcourt (1988), 46 Ohio App.3d 52 * * *.”
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.