Daniel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Fuqua v. Williams (2003), 100 Ohio St. 3d 315 - Jackson v. Wilson (2003)
43 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 Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty. · State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster · State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul · 84 Ohio St. 3d 165 - State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene · State v. Selvage
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hoever is unlawfully restrained of his liberty, or entitled to the custody of another, of which custody such person is unlawfully deprived, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment, restraint, or deprivation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * [I]n State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 165 , 167 * * *, we recognized that "habeas corpus in Ohio is generally appropriate in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some other type of physical confinement." See, e.g., State ex rel. Carrion v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 637 , 638 * * *; State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul (1995), *Page 8 73 Ohio St.3d 185 , 188 [.] * * * See, also, R.C. 2725.04 (B), (C), and (D). Daniel is not currently in custody or otherwise physically confined.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.