32 Ohio App. 2d 319 - Matson v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably 39 Ohio App. 2d 97 - Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 59 Ohio App. 2d 216 - East Ohio Gas Co. v. Walker (1978)
81 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 D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co. · 32 Ohio App. 2d 329 - Cautela Bros. Cement Contractors v. McFadden · 103 Ohio App. 55 - Rood v. McCann · 61 Ohio App. 253 - Canal Winchester Bank v. Exline · 14 Ohio App. 2d 112 - McMillen v. Willard Garage, Inc.
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, where the judgment was entered by confession upon a warrant-of-attorney without prior notice, the existence of a meritorious defense to all or part of the claim is sufficient to justify relief from judgment, provided the motion is timely.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Eule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. “The procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Obviously the prerequisites to an adjudication of a valid defense require more than a general denial of the averments of the petition which would be sufficient to state a defense before judgment. It is essential that the judge, who is called upon to suspend the judgment, must have enough factual information before him to require determination that the defendant has a valid defense. If the party moving to suspend' the judgment can within the rules of pleading set out in his answer sufficient facts to apprise the court that he has a defense, this should be done and the adjudication can be made upon the averments of the answer. If, to set forth enough facts to disclose his defense, he would offend the rules of pleadings by setting them out in his answer, then they should be brought to the attention of the court by evidence orally or by affidavit. * * *””
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.