Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 Ohio App. 3d 17 - Doughman v. Long

42 Ohio App. 3d 17 - Doughman v. Long’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Et Al. (2016), 97 Ohio App. 3d 423 - Tabar v. Charlie's Towing Service, Inc. (1994)

35 state decisions

14019871990200020102020decided

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 ex rel. Celebrezze v. Board of County Commissioners · 28 Ohio App. 3d 101 - Wendover Road Property Owners Ass'n v. Kornicks · 53 Ohio App. 2d 134 - Candler v. Ash · Burns Motor Co. v. Briggs · 22 Ohio App. 2d 172 - Gulp Ins. Group v. Trester

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Because this case involves the theft and subsequent abandonment of a stolen vehicle by its thief, and is not one wherein the vehicle’s owner or a person operating it with the owner’s consent is involved, we conclude R.C. 4513.60 through 4513.63 do not apply. This is simply not a case where it is fair to suggest appellant abandoned his pickup and thereby impliedly consented to its towing and storage until he chose to reclaim it. Nor is this a case where appellant was responsible for creating a nuisance on the highway. Because R.C. 4513.60 through 4513.63 do not apply, [the company] had no statutory lien arising therefrom..[and] the trial court erred ... in granting ... judgment against appellant for $3,700.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(A)(1) Any property * * * that has been lawfully seized * * * and that is in the custody of a law enforcement agency, shall be kept safely pending the time it no longer is needed as evidence, and shall be disposed of pursuant to this section. % íjí iji “(B) A law enforcement agency that has property in its possession that is required to be disposed of pursuant to this section shall make a reasonable effort to locate the persons entitled to possession of the property in its custody, to notify them of when and where it may be claimed, and to return the property to them at the earliest possible time. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “property over which the owner has relinquished all right, title, claim, and possession with the intention of not reclaiming it or resuming its ownership, possession or enjoyment.”
    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.