Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2018 Ohio 171 - Riddick v. Taylor

Riddick v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Dresher v. Burt · Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. · Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. · O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. · State Ex Rel. Hanson v. Guernsey 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The four-year limitations period in a fraud claim begins to run " 'when the complainant has discovered, or should have discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the alleged fraud.' " Washburn v. Gvozdanovic , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160590, 2017-Ohio-2954 [ 91 N.E.3d 164 ], ¶ 17, quoting Vanderlaan v. Pavlik , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150060, 2015-Ohio-5349 [ 2015 WL 9392747 ], ¶ 13. A person should be aware that a fraud has occurred when the facts that she or he possesses would alert a reasonable person to the possibility of fraud. Washburn at id. [,] citing Palm Beach Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. , 106 Ohio App.3d 167 , 171, 665 N.E.2d 718 (1st Dist.1995).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “'when the complainant has discovered, or should have discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the alleged fraud.'”
    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.