27 Ohio App. 2d 112 - Powell v. Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Lesniak v. County of Bergen (1989), Drayton Ex Rel. Drayton v. Jiffee Chemical Corp. (1975)
3 federal appellate · 25 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 146 Ohio St. 527 - Karr, Admr. v. Sixt · Henderson v. Breesman · Schwab v. Allou Corporation · Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Egich · 9 Ohio App. 2d 105 - Cusumano v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The general rule appears to be that if the injury is of an objective nature (such as the loss of an arm, leg, or other member) the jury may draw their conclusions as to future pain and suffering from that fact alone (the permanency of such injury being obvious); whereas there must be expert evidence as to future pain and suffering or permanency where the injury is subjective in character.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“there must be evidence of the probable effect of the plaintiff's injury upon his future earnings from which the jury may, with reasonable certainty, determine the effect of the injury on earning capacity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The mere fact alone that there may be some permanency to the injury is not enough. This court is committed to the proposition that the jury cannot be allowed to speculate or guess in making allowance for future medical expenses; there must be some data furnished to the jury upon which it might reasonably estimate the amount to be allowed for this item.””
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.