40 Ohio App. 3d 1 - Korodi v. Minot’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock (1989), 90 Ohio App. 3d 284 - Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority, Inc. (1993)
73 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 O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. · Goldman v. Belden · Haddon View Investment Co. v. Coopers · Phung v. Waste Management, Inc. · 58 Ohio St. 2d 221 - State ex rel. Alford v. Willoughby Civil Service Commission
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““First, particularity is required to protect defendants from the potential harm to their reputations which may attend general accusations of acts involving moral turpitude. Second, particularity ensures that the obligations are concrete and specific so as to provide defendants notice of what conduct is being challenged. Finally, the particularity requirement inhibits the filing of complaints as a pretext for discovery of unknown wrongs.” Korodi v. Minot, supra, 40 Ohio App.3d at 4 , 531 N.E.2d at 321 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““(1) a false representation; (2) knowledge by the person making the representation that it is false; (3) the intent by the person making the representation to induce the other to rely on that representation; (4) rightful reliance by the other to his detriment; (5) an injury as a result of the reliance.” Korodi v. Minot (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 1, 3 , 531 N.E.2d 318, 321 , citing Schwartz v. Capital S. & L. Co. (1978), 56 Ohio App.2d 83, 86 , 10 O.O.3d 117, 118-119 , 381 N.E.2d 957, 959 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“{¶ 20} A plaintiff's duty to offer specifics when pleading a fraud claim must be balanced with the overarching goals of Ohio's notice pleading requirements: In this regard, we find the general propositions developed by the Second Circuit to be quite helpful in assessing the adequacy of a complaint sounding in fraud for purposes of Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The federal appeals court has stated that the particularity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) means: (1) plaintiff must specify the statements claimed to be false; (2) the complaint must state the time and place where the statements were made; and, (3) plaintiff must identify the defendant claimed to have made the statement. Goldman v. Belden (C.A. 2, 1985), 754 F.2d 1059 , 1069-1070. These requirements are intended to place potential defendants on notice of the precise statement being alleged as fraudulent, which is all that Civ.R. 9(B) requires. Id. * * * Where numerous defendants are claimed to have participated in the fraudulent conduct, it would defeat the purpose of Civ.R. 8 to require a plaintiff to state with precision the exact time and place of each alleged misrepresentation. See Pierce v. Apple Valley, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 1984), 597 F.Supp. 1480 , 1492-1493. Accordingly, a court should give due deference to the circumstances which surround the alleged fraudulent acts when invoking the requirement of particularity to test the sufficiency of a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).”
2 later decisions 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.