12 Ohio App. 3d 44 - Ruper v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2009
7 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. · 39 Ohio App. 2d 97 - Adomeit v. Baltimore
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is difficult to say precisely what this motion was meant to accomplish. Insofar as it sought an appeal de novo despite consent to binding arbitration, the motion was properly denied. If it was meant to be a bona fide Civ. R. 60(B) motion, it did not demonstrate a defense to the underlying action; nor did it *Page 7 specify the particular subsection under which relief was sought. Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 39 Ohio App.2d 97 ; GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146 ." Ruper at 46.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Civ. R. 60(B) proceedings are not a substitute for appeal of an arbitration award, whether or not the arbitration agreement is consensual.”
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.