green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.5 score
“goals include the desire to keep the highways clear of people who have demonstrated a willingness to abandon their physical and mental acuity to drugs, the desire to inhibit the ability to buy, sell, transport or use controlled substances . . .”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
People v. Rohn
goals include the desire to keep the highways clear of people who have demonstrated a willingness to abandon their physical and mental acuity to drugs, the desire to inhibit the ability to buy, sell, transport or use controlled substances . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Austin
State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 , 1999-Ohio-113 , 715 N.E.2d 167 citing State v. Thompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560 , 664 N.E.2d 926, 928 (1996). {¶68} R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) has survived constitutional challenges predicated upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Unites States Constitution in State v. Burke, 2016-Ohio-8185 , 69 N.E.3d 774 (2d Dist.), State v. Wilson, 4th Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrold v. Collier
Thompkins at 560, 664 N.E.2d 926 ; Arnold v. Cleveland (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 35, 38-39 , 616 N.E.2d 163 . {¶ 37} A party may challenge a statute as unconstitutional on its face or as applied to a particular set of facts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Smith
The Supreme Court stated, 75 Ohio St.3d at 560 , 664 N.E.2d at 928, fn. 2 , the following: “The appellants also argue that the statutes in question were enacted pursuant to Section 159, Title 23, U.S.Code, which violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Burden
The Supreme Court stated at 560, 664 N.E.2d at 928, fn. 2 , the following: “The appellants also argue that the statutes in question were enacted pursuant to Section 159, Title 23, U.S.Code, which violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Moore (Slip Opinion)
See State v. Thompkins , 75 Ohio St.3d 558 , 561, 664 N.E.2d 926 (1996) ; see also McGinnis v. Royster , 410 U.S. 263 , 93 S.Ct. 1055 , 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973) (applying rational-basis review to state sentencing schemes).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Stevens
See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560 , 664 N.E.2d 926 , 928–929.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Castor
Accord State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560 , 664 N.E.2d 926 .
cited
Cited "see"
In re D.R.
See State v. Thompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 558 , 560– 561, 664 N.E.2d 926 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
City of Toledo v. Tellings
See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560-561 , 664 N.E.2d 926 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Peoples
(2×)
See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 561 , 664 N.E.2d 926 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Campa, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2002)
See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558 , 560 , 664 N.E.2d 926 , 928-929 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Walton
See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 561 , 664 N.E.2d 926, 929 . 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Smith
Accord State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560 , 664 N.E.2d 926, 928 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Smith
Accord State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558 , 560, 664 N.E.2d 926 , 928.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Maple Heights v. Ephraim
See also State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560 , 664 N.E.2d 926 (the General Assembly has the authority, under the state’s police powers, to enact laws defining criminal conduct and to prescribe its punishment). {¶ 25} Statistical data show that juvenile crime is a matter that affects the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
McKinzie
v.
McKinzie
No. 95-2405.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jun 5, 1996.
John F. Holcomb, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Daniel G. Eichel and John J. McCracken, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee., H. Fred Hoefle, for appellant.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Per Curiam.
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its entry.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.