14 Ohio App. 3d 306 - Giachetti v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Goldstein v. Christiansen (1994), Ricker v. fraza/forklifts of Detroit (2005)
84 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 Welsh v. Gibbs · 43 Ohio App. 2d 79 - Jurko v. Jobs Europe Agency · 2 Ohio App. 3d 233 - Barile v. University of Virginia · 510 F. Supp. 753 - Lachman v. Bank of Louisiana in New Orleans · Priess v. Fisherfolk
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's: {¶ 13} "(1) Transacting any business in this state; {¶ 14} "(2) Contracting to supply services or goods in this state; {¶ 15} "(3) Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this state; {¶ 16} "(4) Causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state; {¶ 17} "* * * {¶ 18} "(6) Causing tortious injury in this state to any person by an act outside this state committed with the purpose of injuring persons, when he might reasonably have expected that some person would be injured thereby in this state * * *.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the court decides the issue of jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, it must view the allegations in the pleadings and any evidentiary material most favorably towards the non-moving party and resolve all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. In the absence of a hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie case to demonstrate jurisdiction in order to defeat a motion to dismiss.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““(A) When service permitted. Service of process may be made outside of this state, as provided in this rule, in any action in this state, upon a person who, at the time of service of process, is a nonresident of this state * * *. ‘Person’ includes * * * a corporation, partnership, association, or any other legal or commercial entity, who, acting directly or by an agent, has caused an event to occur out of which the claim that is the subject of the complaint arose, jfrom the person’s: “(1) Transacting any business in this state[.]” (Emphasis added.)”
2 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.