151 Ohio App. 3d 554 - Celeste v. Wiseco Piston’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Walsh v. Ohio Dept. of Health (2022), Avery v. Joint Twp. Dist. Mem'l Hosp. (2007)
34 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 Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc. · Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc. · Illinois Controls, Inc. v. Langham · 73 Ohio St. 3d 666 - Fahnbulleh v. Strahan · 94 Ohio St. 3d 77 - Pytlinski v. Brocar Products, 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * it is arguable that Ohio's Product Liability Act, R.C. 2307.71 , et seq., may contain a public policy prohibiting employers from terminating an employee who reports to management his/her concerns about consumer safety as to the products being produced by the employer. Accordingly, there was an arguable theory upon which appellant may recover.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that during the course of his employment, appellant made numerous complaints and expressed concerns that the making of the proposed modifications to the motorcycle engines contemplated by [appellee] without adequate safety testing and adjustments would result in injury and/or death of the people purchasing the modification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper if, after all factual allegations are presumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are made in favor of the non-moving party, it appears beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts warranting the requested relief.”
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.