45 Ohio App. 2d 83 - State, Ex Rel. Ferguson v. Shoemaker’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2022
16 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 State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission · State ex rel. Adams v. Gusweiler · Krause v. State · 7 Ohio St. 2d 85 - State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. City of Berea · State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Regarding contract claims against the state, Ohio case law establishes that '[a] direct action on a contract with the state, seeking monetary relief from the state, must be commenced and prosecuted in the Court of Claims and cannot be brought in the Court of Common Pleas.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As we have suggested, if the instant action were simply an action for the recovery of money there would be some plausibility in the argument that it was an action against the state and, therefore, not permitted, but assuredly an action against a state employee to determine rights, liability or status is not prohibited because that employee happens to be the head of one of the administrative boards of the state. If it were otherwise it would mean that one could not mandamus a state officer to 'perform a clearly mandatory duty or one could not enjoin him from committing a patent and outrageously illegal act. A private citizen in such case would be helpless from unlawful, oppressive and outrageous conduct of a state official. ” Id. at 299 . (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““An action against the administrator of a state bureau for a declaratory judgment pronouncing the rights, status or other legal relations of the plaintiff with reference to a statute is not an action against the state, even though other incidental relief is granted.””
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.