Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 141 Ohio App. 3d 460 - Syphard v. Vrable

141 Ohio App. 3d 460 - Syphard v. Vrable’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably 145 Ohio App. 3d 796 - Keaton v. Purchase Plus Buyers Group, Inc. (2001), Cook Family Invests. v. Billings, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2006) (2006)

41 state decisions

220200120102020decided

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. · Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams · Colley v. Bazell · Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc. · Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “with enough specificity to allow the trial court to decide whether he or she has met that test.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]here timely relief is sought from a default judgment and the movant has a meritorious defense, doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of the motion to set aside the judgment so that cases may be decided on their merits.”
    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.