101 Ohio App. 3d 48 - Saum v. Moenter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “present when the check was deposited into No. 16AP-742 8 an escrow account, which had the sole purpose of paying building expenses,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Three-C Body Shops, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. · Three-C Body Shops, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2. “To constitute a gift, there must be a donative intent. 52 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1984), Gifts, Section 8. On the other hand, a "`[c]ontract' is [an] agreement upon sufficient consideration between two or more persons to do or not to do [a] particular thing." Schlupe v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 626 , 605 N.E.2d 987 , paragraph two of the syllabus. More specifically, to demonstrate that a transaction is a loan, the trial court may take into consideration the relationship of the parties and an individual's need for the loan. Modica v. Keith (Feb. 28, 1985), Cuyahoga App. No. 48649, unreported, 1985 WL 6630 , citing Cook Org., Inc. v. Nightingale (1928), 6 Ohio Law Abs. 737 ; 18 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980), Contracts, Section 347. In addition, the trial court can deliberate "whether in view of their relations a loan might be made without being evidenced by a note and any other incidents that would enable one to infer that the transaction constituted a loan or did not." Modica, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. Disbennett, 9-08-14 (10-20-2008)