179 Ohio App. 3d 173 - Dobos v. Dobos’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Kentucky Oaks Mall Co. v. Mitchell's Formal Wear, Inc. · 14 Ohio App. 3d 306 - Giachetti v. Holmes · 82 Ohio App. 3d 809 - Eichenberger v. Eichenberger
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The due process clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to binding judgments of a forum with which that individual has established no 2. Ohio's long-arm statute, R.C. 2307.382, provides in pertinent part, that an Ohio court can exercise jurisdiction over a corporation that transacts any business in the state. -3- Butler CA2013-04-065 meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, the defendant must satisfy the provisions of Ohio's long-arm statute, R.C. 2307.382, and second, exercising jurisdiction over the defendant must comply with due process requirements inherent in the Fourteenth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] defendant's physical presence in the forum state is unnecessary when, in modern life, a substantial amount of interactions occur via telephone and electronic communications.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parocha v. Parocha
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.