27 Ohio App. 3d 90 - Krupansky v. Pascual’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2018
13 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 12 Ohio St. 2d 17 - Cassidy v. Glossip · 49 Ohio App. 2d 241 - State v. Gettys · 3 Ohio App. 3d 125 - Berger v. Berger
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.
“The Rules of Superintendence of the Supreme Court are purely internal housekeeping rules which do not have a force equivalent to a statute. State v. Gettys (1976), 49 Ohio App.2d 241 , 243 , 360 N.E.2d 735 [ 3 O.O.3d 286 ]. The Superintendence Rules are applicable only so long as they are not in conflict with statute or other governing Supreme Court rules. Berger v. Berger (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 125 , 443 N.E.2d 1375 . Similarly, while the courts of common pleas have the inherent power to make reasonable rules regulating practice and procedure in those courts, these rules must not be in conflict with the statutes. Cassidy v. Glossip (1967), 12 Ohio St.2d 17 , 231 N.E.2d 64 [ 41 O.O.2d 153 ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Under this statute [former R.C. 2711.21] the party challenging the board’s decision need only amend the pleadings to reflect the results of the arbitration. The statute does not require an ‘appeal’ from the decision nor authorize entering judgment in conformity with the decision without further proceedings. Instead the statute contemplates that the cause will proceed as a civil action subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure with the arbitration decision being offered into evidence per R.C. 2711.21(C). If the plaintiff fails to amend the pleadings or further proceed then the trial court, after notice, may dismiss for failure to prosecute under Civ. R. 41. Thus, the requirement of Loe. R. 20 of the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County and C. P. Sup. R. 15 that final judgment be entered if a party does not ‘appeal’ from the arbitrators’ award cannot be applied to medical claims. * * *” Id. at 92 , 27 OBR at 112, 499 N.E. 2d at 902 .”
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.