46 Ohio App. 2d 281 - Smith v. Wait’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. “... it is [first] necessary to examine carefully the appropriate provisions of R.C. chapter 2743, where the state has partially waived its immunity from suit. The pertinent section is R.C. 2743.02(A), which provides, as follows: “The state hereby waives its immunity from liability and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined in the court of claims created in this chapter in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties.” * * * * * * The crucial language to be interpreted is liability in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties. Private parties are not liable for injuries to another based on negligence unless they have breached a duty owed to that person. Since the requirement of a duty owed to plaintiff is one of the rules of law applicable to suits between private parties, it is also applicable to suits against the state. The Court of Claims Act does not create new duties, it only provides a remedy for existing duties where the state was previously immune from suit and a private party under similar circumstances would have been liable. ... there is no rule of law making a private party liable for a failure to perform statutory duties of inspection and enforcement of safety standards which were enacted to protect the health, safety and welfare of all of the citizens of Ohio Statutes requiring state agencies to inspect and enforce safety standards were enacted to protect the public gener”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 19 Ohio App. 3d 221 - Applegate v. Ohio Department of Agriculture · Baer v. United States

2. ““The state’s waiver of its sovereign immunity from liability has not opened up the public coffers to all who may seek recompense but, rather, permits the liability of the state to be determined in accordance with the rules of law applicable to suits between private parties, no new claim for relief or right of action being created by the waiver of immunity. R. C. 2743.02 (A) merely permits actions against the state to be brought which were previously barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, but such actions must be predicated upon previously recognized claims for relief, for which the state would have been liable except for sovereign immunity.***””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 Ohio App. 2d 35 - Leverett v. State