Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 11 Ohio App. 3d 67 - Messmore v. Monarch Machine Tool Co.

11 Ohio App. 3d 67 - Messmore v. Monarch Machine Tool Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Gearing v. Nationwide Insurance (1996), 41 Ohio App. 3d 392 - Lynn v. Allied Corp. (1987)

1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

22019831990200020102020decided

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 Wilfong v. Batdorf · 66 Wis. 2d 563 - White v. Lunder · Viers v. Dunlap · 32 Ohio App. 2d 221 - Schiltz v. Meyer · Straub v. Voss

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

  1. “[A] cause of action based upon a loss of consortium is a derivative action. That means that the derivative action is dependent upon the existence of a primary cause of action and can be maintained only so long as the primary action continues.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““A cause of action based upon a loss of consortium is a derivative action and as such cannot afford greater relief than that which would be permitted under the primary cause of action. Therefore, an award for loss of consortium cannot exceed that percentage of damages recoverable by the injured spouse. Such an award must be reduced by an amount that is proportionately equal to the percentage of negligence of the injured spouse in accordance with R.C. 2315.19(C).””
    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.