Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 165 OHIOAPP3D 202 - Cook v. Wilson

Cook v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2024

18 state decisions

80200620102020decided

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 Dresher v. Burt · Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · 101 Ohio App. 3d 38 - Coventry Township v. Ecker · 94 Ohio App. 3d 579 - Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc. · 139 Ohio App. 3d 231 - Helman v. Epl Prolong, 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Procedural rules adopted by courts are designed to promote the administration of justice and to eliminate undue delay.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[c]ourts of appeals `cannot and will not search the record in order to make arguments on appellant['s] behalf'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “may disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the party raising it * * * fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief, as required under App.R. 16(A).”
    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.