94 Ohio App. 3d 203 - State v. Pirman’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2019
18 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 Jackson v. Virginia · North Carolina v. Pearce · Davis v. Alaska · Blackledge v. Perry · United States v. Goodwin
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Recantation by a significant witness does not, as a matter of law, entitle the defendant to a new trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A defendant who seeks to cross-examine a juvenile witness with juvenile records must `present some plausible showing' as to a proper purpose and use which would not include an attempt to merely impeach the witness's credibility.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“has no evidentiary value and was inadmissible as it was merely an interview conducted by an investigator in the presence of a court reporter. The trial court held that Avery's affidavit and deposition were not credible because he was not willing to corroborate these statements through live testimony at the hearing. We cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion. {¶ 59} Cleveland alleges that”
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.