Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 Ohio App. 3d 136 - Markan v. Sawchyn

36 Ohio App. 3d 136 - Markan v. Sawchyn’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2018

12 state decisions

501987199020002010decided

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 7 Ohio App. 3d 182 - Verbon v. Pennese · 155 Ohio St. 149 - Tanzi v. New York Central R. Co. · Blair v. Beech Aircraft Corp. · 14 Ohio App. 3d 118 - Hosford v. Automatic Control Systems, Inc. · Caruso v. Sears, Roebuck & 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Time: extension. When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time for taking any action under Rule 50(B), Rule 59(B), Rule 59(D) and Rule 60(B), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““(1) If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall, upon motion, order substitution of the proper parties. * * * Unless the motion for substitution is made not later than ninety days after the death is suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the fact of the death as provided herein for the service of the motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In this case, defendant claims the record indicates that a key witness's testimony consisted of false statements. In reviewing the record, we conclude to the contrary. Although the testimony may at times have been inconsistent and contradictory, there is insufficient basis for a determination that it was false. If apparent contradictions by witnesses justified new trials, courts would be besieged with motions for new trials because such evidence is found in almost every trial.”
    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.