D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
199 federal appellate · 77 district · 517 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,185 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), Fuentes v. Shevin (1972)
199 federal appellate · 77 district · 517 state decisions — followed in 39 states
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Goldberg v. Kelly · Brady v. United States · Fay v. Noia
Cited together with Fuentes v. Shevin · SWARB Et Al. v. LENNOX Et Al. · Johnson v. Zerbst · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust 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 1,185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The due process rights to notice and hearing prior to a civil judgment are subject to waiver.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Our holding necessarily means that a cognovit clause is not, per se, violative of Fourteenth Amendment due process. 2. Our holding, of course, is not controlling precedent for other facts of other cases. For example, where the contract is one of adhesion, where there is great disparity in bargaining power, and where the debtor receives nothing for the cog-novit provision, other legal consequences may ensue. 3. Overmyer, merely because of its execution of the cognovit note, is not rendered defenseless. It concedes that in Ohio the judgment court may vacate its judgment upon a showing of a valid defense. ... And there is nothing we see that prevented Overmyer from pursuing its breach-of-contract claim against Frick in a proper forum.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The Overmyer-Frick agreement, from the start, was not a contract of adhesion. There was no refusal on Frick’s part to deal with Overmyer unless Overmyer agreed to a cognovit. * * *”
14 later decisions 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.