140 Ohio App. 3d 208 - Radovanic v. Cossler’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably 153 Ohio App. 3d 65 - State v. Orwick (2003), 150 Ohio App. 3d 256 - Johnson v. University Hospitals of Cleveland (2002)
28 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 Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center · 37 Ohio App. 3d 78 - Stegawski v. Cleveland Anesthesia Group, Inc. · Peyko v. Frederick · Lemley v. Kaiser · 95 Ohio App. 3d 388 - Feichtner v. City of Cleveland
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. When a plaintiff, having obtained a judgment against a defendant, files a motion for prejudgment interest on the amount of [ 635 N.E.2d at 348-49 ] that judgment pursuant to R.C. 1343.03 (C), the plaintiff, upon a showing of `good cause' pursuant to Civ.R. 26(B)(3), may have access through discovery to those portions of the defendant's insurer's `claims file' that are not shown by the defense to be privileged attorney-client communications. "2. If the defense asserts the attorney-client privilege with regard to the contents of the `claims file,' the trial court shall determine by in camera inspection which portions of the file, if any, are so privileged. The plaintiff then shall be granted access to the non-privileged portions of the file.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Peyko establishes that any determination regarding a party's good faith effort to settle requires a review of the settlement efforts made by a party's insurance carrier(s). 25 Ohio St. 3d at 166 -167 , 25 Ohio B. Rep. at 209, 495 N.E.2d at 921. Most of the information regarding the insurer's efforts will be contained in the claims file. In this regard, Peyko clearly recognizes that a post-trial proceeding for prejudgment interest is amenable to the general discovery process established by the Civil Rules. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]n an R.C. 1343.03 (C) proceeding for prejudgment interest, neither the attorney-client privilege nor the so-called work product exception precludes discovery of the contents of an insurer's claims file. The only privileged matters contained in the file are those that go directly to the theory of defense of the underlying case in which the decision or verdict has been rendered.”
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.