Grover v. Bartsch’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Care Risk Retention Group v. Martin (2010), 183 Ohio App. 3d 356 - Beatley v. Knisley (2009)
96 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 O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. · Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. · Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp. · Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde · Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Interlocutory orders * * * are merged into the final judgment. Thus, an appeal from the final judgment includes all interlocutory orders merged with it * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“{¶ 12} “This Court finds that as a matter of law the Plaintiff knew or should have known of the taking of the personal property prior to September 8, 2004 when the demand letter was sent. At the earliest, he knew that arrangements for the personal property should have been made on or before May 25, 2004 when the Sheriffs Sale occurred. At the latest, the Plaintiff knew or should have discovered that something was wrong on or about July 20, 2004 when he discovered a chain across the property. Therefore, at earliest he had from May 26, 2004 to May 25, 2008 to file an action to recover the property or from July 20, 2004 to July 19, 2008 as the latest time period to file his lawsuit. Plaintiffs Compliant [sic] was filed on September 5, 2008. As a matter of law, this Court finds that the statute of limitations had run when Mr. Maga filed his lawsuit. Therefore, the Magistrate’s dismissal of his lawsuit based upon a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted was correct.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Maga v. Brockman“Id. at ¶ 23. The defendant, who was served with the complaint in Virginia, moved to dismiss the action. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs' claims untimely, and further finding that Ohio's tolling statute, R.C. 2305.15, was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. {¶ 22} On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court's ruling, asserting the statute was constitutional as applied to individuals such as defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roy v. Grove
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.