48 Ohio App. 3d 24 - Levine v. Beckman’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden (1999), 140 Ohio App. 3d 260 - Procter Gamble Company v. Stoneham (2000)
3 federal appellate · 67 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 Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Carl M. Geupel Construction Co. · Raimonde v. Van Vlerah · Arthur Murray Dance Studios of Cleveland, Inc. v. Witter · Valco Cincinnati, Inc. v. N & D Machining Service, Inc. · 63 Ohio App. 2d 34 - Central Motors Corp. v. City of Pepper Pike
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(B) Involuntary dismissal: effect thereof {¶ 25} "* * * {¶ 26} "(2) Dismissal; non-jury action. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the grounds that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n determining the validity of a covenant or agreement in restraint of trade, each case must be decided on its own facts. . . . A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if it is [1.] no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, [2.] does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and [3.] is not injurious to the public. Courts are empowered to modify or amend employment agreements to achieve such [reasonable] results.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is required to adduce clear and convincing evidence as to each of these factors”
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.