Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 Ohio App. 3d 692 - Tinter v. Lucik

172 Ohio App. 3d 692 - Tinter v. Lucik’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2025

11 state decisions

80200720102020decided

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 61 Ohio App. 3d 127 - Lorain National Bank v. Saratoga Apartments · Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. · United States v. Byrum · Williams v. Aetna Finance Co. · Crosby v. Beam

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

  1. “limited to a small number of people who are dependent on each other for the enterprise to succeed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “few shareholders and whose corporate shares are not generally traded on a securities market.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A fiduciary duty exists between shareholders of a close corporation, particularly between majority and minority shareholders. * * * That fiduciary duty `imposes on the members of the firm the obligation of the utmost good faith in their dealings with one another with respect to partnership affairs, of acting for the common benefit of all the partners in all transactions relating to the firm business, and of refraining from taking any advantage of one another by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat, or adverse pressure of any kind.' * * * In particular, a majority shareholder has a fiduciary duty not to misuse her power by promoting her personal interests at the expense of corporate interests.”
    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.