116 Ohio App. 3d 716 - Falk v. Wachs’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2014
9 state decisions
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 GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. · Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams · Patton v. Diemer · 39 Ohio App. 2d 97 - Adomeit v. Baltimore · Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman
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.
““[Employer representative] has not demonstrated how either the statute or the administrative regulations mandate exclusive jurisdiction before the Industrial Commission according to the facts in the case sub judice. While the statute grants the commission broad authority to prevent the exploitation of claimants, it mandates specific attorney fee approval procedures only where there is a fee controversy and with respect to services rendered in securing a lump-sum payment under R.C. 4123.64; this case involves a final settlement agreement with a private self-insured employer under R.C. 4123.65. “Moreover, the language of the Administrative Code and the statute is plain on its face; it is intended to address only disputes ‘between a party and his representative’; ‘[t]he fee controversy has to be between the attorney and his client.’ Sonkin & Melena Co., L.P.A. v. Zaransky (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 169, 178 , 614 N.E.2d 807, 813 . The doctrine of standing requires a litigant to be in the proper position to assert a claim, and the party’s inquiry must be within the zone of interest intended to be protected or regulated by statute. See Taylor v. Academy Iron & Metal Co. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 149, 152 , 522 N.E.2d 464, 467 . GatesMcDonald, as a third-party administrator representing a self-insured employer, would not appear to have standing in the resolution of a fee dispute between a claimant and his representative.” Falk , at 722, 689 N.E.2d at 75 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is not necessarily limited to one year from the date of judgment, * * * but it must be brought `within a reasonable time.'”
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.