41 Ohio App. 3d 373 - Mancini v. Gorick’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably 123 Ohio App. 3d 51 - Leal v. Holtvogt (1998), Dow Chemical Co. v. Mahlum (1998)
2 district · 28 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 8 Ohio App. 3d 381 - Kaye v. Buehrle · Central States Stamping Company v. Terminal Equipment Company Inc Na
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although a claim of nondisclosure will not overcome an `as-is' clause, a claim of fraudulent concealment will. Nondisclosure will become the equivalent of fraudulent concealment when it becomes the duty of a person to speak in order that the party with whom he is dealing may be placed on an equal footing with him. The duty to speak does not necessarily depend on the existence of a fiduciary relationship. Central States Stamping Co. v. Terminal Equipment Co., (C.A.6, 1984), 727 F.2d 1405, 1409 . `* * * It may arise in any situation where one party imposes confidence in the other because of that person's position, and the other party knows of this confidence. * * *' " Id. ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“condition from Gorick who was not only the seller, but the architect and general contractor of the house. Subsequent to the purchase, the Mancinis discovered that the rafters supporting the roof were of an improper size and not adequately supported. The Mancinis filed suit asserting nondisclosure of this defect, and Gorick filed a motion for summary judgment contending that he was not liable because the property was sold”
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.