Robinson v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
3 district · 193 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc. (2009), 229 Ill. 2d 393 - Wills v. Foster (2008)
3 district · 193 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. · Armstrong v. Best Buy Co. · Chambers v. St. Mary's School · Pryor v. Webber · Sorrell v. Thevenir
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) In any tort action, the defendant may introduce evidence of any amount payable as a benefit to the plaintiff as a result of the damages that result from an injury, death, or loss to person or property that is the subject of the claim upon which the action is based, except if the source of collateral benefits has a mandatory self-effectuating federal right of subrogation, a contractual right of subrogation, or a statutory right of sub-rogation or if the source pays the plaintiff a benefit that is in the form of a life insurance payment or a disability payment ...”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[C]ontrary to appellants' suggestion, the Ohio Supreme Court did not hold in Robinson that all claims against a landlord for breach of a landlord's statutory duty must be submitted to a jury. Rather, the Ohio Supreme Court examined the record before it and concluded that, "[f]rom the testimony, it is clear that a jury should have been allowed to consider whether [the landlord] exercised reasonable diligence and care in [a repair] * * * or instead breached her statutory duty to repair." Id. at ¶ 24.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the existence of a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) an injury proximately resulting from the breach.”
3 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.