Brown v. Lamb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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. ““In our opinion, the trial court abused its discretion and committed error prejudicial to the appellant in suspending its order of October 5, 1970; errors which occurred in subsequent proceedings could not have transpired but for that abuse. The record establishes that the order vacating the entry of dismissal was properly entered and should not have been reheard by the assigned judge. “We also note that the case of LaBarbera v. Batsch (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 106 , 227 N.E.2d 55 , is distinguishable upon its facts from the instant case, is not dispositive of the issue involving res judicata and should not have been relied upon for • that purpose below. “The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.” Brown v. Lamb, 36 Ohio St.2d 8, 11 , 302 N.E.2d 578, 579 (1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Kiroff