132 Ohio App. 3d 157 - Cross v. Carnes’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. (2003), HOJNOWSKI EX REL. HOJNOWSKI v. Vans Skate Park (2006)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 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 Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Southland Corp. v. Keating
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e note that the parent's consent and release to arbitration only specifies the forum for resolution of the child's claim; it does not extinguish the claim. Logically, if a parent has the authority to bring and conduct a lawsuit on behalf of the child, he or she has the same authority to choose arbitration as the litigation forum.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“factors bearing on the relative bargaining position of the contracting parties, including their age, education, intelligence, business acumen and experience, relative bargaining power, who drafted the contract, whether the terms were explained to the weaker party, and whether alterations in the printed terms were possible.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If any action is brought upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, the court in which the action is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in the action is referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until the arbitration of the issue has been had in accordance with the agreement, provided the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with arbitration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.