Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 Ohio App. 3d 29 - Power v. Boles

110 Ohio App. 3d 29 - Power v. Boles’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2021

14 state decisions

901996200020102020decided

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 Mussivand v. David · Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co. · Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Companies · Leibreich v. A.J. Refrigeration, Inc. · Whitelock v. Gilbane Building Co.

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

  1. “[Section] 323(a) applies only when the defendant’s actions increased the risk of harm to plaintiff relative to the risk that would have existed had the defendant never provided the services initially. Put another way, the defendant’s negligent performance must somehow put the plaintiff in a worse situation than if the defendant had never begun performance .... [T]o prevail under a theory of increased harm a plaintiff must “identify the sins of commission rather than sins of omission.” ... Likewise with respect to the “reliance” prong of section 323(b), [there is a] general requirement that the plaintiff show “actual or affirmative reliance, i.e., reliance ‘based on specific actions or representations which cause a person to fore-go other alternatives of protecting themselves.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other’s person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if: “(a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or “(b) the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “show actual or affirmative reliance, i.e., reliance 'based on specific actions or representations which cause the persons to forego other alternatives of protecting themselves.'”
    2 later decisions 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.