Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 Ohio App. 3d 88 - Applegate v. Duncanside Park

28 Ohio App. 3d 88 - Applegate v. Duncanside Park’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2016

6 state decisions

201986199020002010decided

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 Heckert v. Patrick · Zents v. Board of Commissioners · Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co. · 58 Ohio App. 2d 61 - Zupancic v. City of Cleveland

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

  1. ““Liability for tortious conduct is premised upon the existence of an express duty, albeit common law or statutory, owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Strunk [v. Dayton Power & Light Co. (1983) ], supra [ 6 Ohio St.3d 429 ] at 431 [ 453 N.E.2d 604, 606 ]. Counties, as creatures of statute, possess only those powers and duties imposed upon them by statute. 52 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1984) 122, Government Tort Liability, Section 25. In the instant action, appellants have not demonstrated the existence of any statutory duty on the part of appellee to trim weeds growing in the median strip of a county highway. In the absence of such duty, appellants cannot recover against appellee even though sovereign immunity no longer remains as a defense.” Id. at 90, 28 OBR at 132-133, 502 N.E.2d at 252 .”
    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.