48 Ohio App. 3d 101 - Russo v. Chittick’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 159 Ohio App. 3d 794 - Northern Ohio Sewer Contractors, Inc. v. Bradley Development Co. (2005), 154 Ohio App. 3d 316 - Creatore v. Robert W. Baird & Co. (2003)
3 federal appellate · 36 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 Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy District · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Local Union No. 200, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers · Warren Education Ass'n v. Warren City Board of Education · 114 Ohio St. 212 - State Ex Rel. Tague v. Klinger · 5 Ohio App. 2d 49 - Goldman v. Board of Education of Cincinnati School District
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At any time within one year after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may apply to the court of common pleas for an order confirming the award. Thereupon the court shall grant such an order and enter judgment thereon, unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 2711.10 and 2711.11 of the Revised Code. Notice in writing of the application shall be served upon the adverse party or his attorney five days before the hearing thereof.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““In any of the following cases, the court of common pleas shall make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration if: “(A) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or .undue means. “(B) There was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or any of them. “(C) The arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. “(D) The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. “If an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired, the court may direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“R.C. 2711.09 is not tantamount to a statute of limitations. In the *Page 4 interest of judicial economy the common pleas court has the discretion to permit summary application for confirmation within a reasonable time beyond one year, for good cause shown, if no prejudice occurs to the opposing party by the filing of the motion beyond said period.”
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.