41 Ohio App. 2d 244 - Barnes v. Appeals’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2005
8 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 73 Ohio App. 571 - Ekleberry v. Sanford · 108 Ohio App. 72 - Oatman v. Frey · Wilson v. Marino · 104 Ohio App. 64 - Tradler v. Young
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘A verdict may be said to be defective in form when the language or expression used is imperfect or wanting to correctly express the real intention of the jury, and may be corrected by the jury or by the court with the consent of the jury when or in cases where it can be done without affecting the issues raised by the pleadings or presented by the evidence. A verdict is defective in substance if it is wanting in some real or essential part or element and does not correspond to the issues raised by the pleadings; and the language ‘defective in substance’ may be said to be opposed to or opposite to form or defective in form.’ ” Barnes v. Prince (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 244, 245 , 70 O.O.2d 454, 454-455 , 325 N.E.2d 252, 253 , quoting Lehrer v. Cleveland Ry. Co. (C.P.1918), 20 Ohio N.P. (N.S.) 481, 493, 28 Ohio Dec. 243 , 255.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The court's duty was not to ignore this language, as appellant claims, but rather `it is the duty of the trial judge to look after the form and substance of a verdict so as to prevent a doubtful or insufficient finding from passing into the court records.' Since the verdict appeared irregular on its face, and the jury's intent was not clear, the court acted within its discretion by resubmitting the case pursuant to Civ.R. 48.”
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.