Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 Ohio App. 3d 227 - Roll v. Edwards

156 Ohio App. 3d 227 - Roll v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
2
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Ogle v. Ohio Power Company (2008), 157 Ohio App. 3d 716 - Milhoan v. Eastern Local School District Board of Education (2004)

65 state decisions

370200420102020decided

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 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Califano v. Sanders · Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations · Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. · York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

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

  1. “beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) an existence of an expectancy of inheritance in the plaintiff; (2) an intentional interference by a defendant(s) with that expectancy of inheritance; (3) conduct by the defendant involving the interference which is tortious, such as fraud, duress or undue influence, in nature; (4) a reasonable certainty that the expectancy of inheritance would have been realized, but for the interference by the defendant; and (5) damage resulting from the interference.”
    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.