Walker v. Doup’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 37 Ohio St. 3d 80 - Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 69 Ohio St. 3d 373 - State ex rel. Papp v. James (1994)
27 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 State v. Mapson · Jones v. State
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]ecause the thirty-day period for filing a notice of appeal is suspended only by a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, there was no timely appeal of the final judgment * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`The obvious reasons for requiring findings are `* * * to apprise the petitioner of the grounds for the judgment of the trial court and to enable the appellate courts to properly determine appeals in such a cause.' Jones v. State (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 21 , 22 , [ 222 N.E.2d 313 , 314 ]. The existence of findings and conclusions [is] essential in order to prosecute an appeal. Without them, a petitioner knows no more than he lost and hence is effectively precluded from making a reasoned appeal. In addition the failure of a trial judge to make the requisite findings prevents any meaningful judicial review, for it is the findings and the conclusions which an appellate court reviews for error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When questions of fact are tried by the court without a jury, judgment may be general for the prevailing party unless one of the parties in writing requests otherwise before the entry of judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 58, or not later than seven days after the party filing the request has been given notice of the court's announcement of its decision, whichever is later, in which case, the court shall state in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law. * * * Findings of fact and conclusions of law required by this rule and by Rule 41(B)(2) are unnecessary upon all other motions including those pursuant to Rule 12, Rule 55 and Rule 56.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.