130 Ohio App. 3d 64 - Mullens v. Binsky’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2024
21 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 Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · Scifres v. Kraft · 100 Ohio App. 3d 601 - Anderson v. Ruoff · Martin v. Shea · 277 Ill. App. 3d 1034 - Barham Ex Rel. Barham v. Knickrehm
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'generally the danger of drowning in a body of water is considered an open and obvious risk which both minors and adults should be expected to be able to appreciate and avoid.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]ventually they started tossing a football back and forth, and David got the football and he — he was tossing it into the pool. "I don't know which child. I don't know if it was mine or his, but they were just tossing it back and forth, and he raised his arm and tossed the ball, and the next thing we knew, he was down on the floor.["] * * * Additionally, Mrs. Bell was at the pool before Mr. Nichols and his children arrived, and remembered she warned Mr. Nichols that the tile was slick around the edges of the pool. Shortly after the fall and injury, Mr. Nichols told the hotel's front desk clerk what had happened. * * * In response, the clerk stated that he knew the surface was slick, that others had complained about the slick surface, and that he too had fallen on the pool deck. * * * Supposedly, the clerk later denied making such statements. {¶ 25} In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment filed in a negligence action, a plaintiff is required to "identify a duty owed to plaintiff by the defendant; further, there must be sufficient evidence, `considered most favorably to the plaintiff, to allow reasonable minds to infer that the duty was breached, that the breach of that duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury and that the plaintiff was injured.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in the absence of a statutory requirement imposing a duty on a homeowner to provide a rope or float line in a residential swimming pool, and where the evidence fails to indicate how decedent drowned or that the presence of a rope or float line would have prevented the accident, the mere fact that the pool lacked such equipment does not, standing alone, provide the basis for liability against the defendant.”
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.