Abrams v. Worthington’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Capella III, L.L.C. v. Wilcox (2010), Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan (2010)
64 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 Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. · State ex rel. Grady v. State Employment Relations Board · Byrd v. Faber · Jeffers v. Olexo · 123 Ohio App. 3d 158 - Helton v. Scioto County Board of Commissioners
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`When reviewing a trial court's ruling on summary judgment, the court of appeals conducts an independent review of the record and stands in the shoes of the trial court.'”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage“'When reviewing a trial court's ruling on summary judgment, the court of appeals conducts an independent review of the record and stands in the shoes of the trial court.' " Abrams v. Worthington, 169 Ohio App.3d 94 , 2006- Ohio-5516, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.), quoting Mergenthal v. Star Banc Corp., 122 Ohio App.3d 100, 103 (12th Dist.1997). Civ.R. 56(C) provides that a trial court must grant summary judgment when the moving party demonstrates that: (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660 , 2004-Ohio-7108, ¶ 6 . {¶ 18} Further, "[a]n appellate court reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion for reconsideration of a grant or denial of summary judgment applies a de novo standard of review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Liability for negligent retention arises because the employer chooses to retain an employee who has a history of criminal, tortious, or otherwise dangerous conduct about which the employer knew or could have discovered through reasonable investigation.”
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.