Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2012 Ohio 690 - Williams v. Ormsby

Williams v. Ormsby’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

37 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strock v. Pressnell · Kostelnik v. Helper · State v. Williams · 436 F. Supp. 409 - Perlmuter Printing Co. v. Strome, Inc. · 132 Ohio St. 21 - Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co.

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

  1. “[B]ecause a novation is a new contract, it too must meet all the elements of a contract.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Essential elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent and legality of object and of consideration.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A benefit may consist of some right, interest, or profit accruing to the promisor, while a detriment may consist of some forbearance, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the promisee.”
    2 later decisions 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.