State v. Comer’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

1,175

cited by 1,175 later decisions

states following

November 2024

most recently cited

1,157 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,175 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Foster (2006), State v. Mathis (2006)

1,157 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 v. Murnahan · State v. Edmonson · 136 Ohio App. 3d 355 - State v. Martin · State v. Boland · 144 Ohio App. 3d 323 - State v. Grider

Cited together with Blakely v. Washington · State v. Edmonson · Strickland v. Washington · Apprendi v. New Jersey · State v. Foster

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 1,175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) and 2929.19 (B)(2)(c), when imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court is required to make its statutorily enumerated findings and give reasons supporting those findings at the sentencing hearing.”
254 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Alvarado, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2004) · State v. Hibbard, Unpublished Decision (12-30-2004)
“(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”
138 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. State v. Langley, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004) · State v. Slabaugh, Unpublished Decision (10-3-2005)
“A court may not impose consecutive sentences for multiple offenses unless it `finds' three statutory factors. R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4). First, the court must find that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender. * * * Second, the court must find that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public. * * * Third, the court must find the existence of one of the enumerated circumstances in R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4)(a) through (c).”
136 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. McGowan, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2004) · State v. Langley, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004)

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.