48 Ohio App. 3d 268 - Uebelacker v. Cincom Systems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably 81 Ohio App. 3d 591 - Akron-Canton Waste Oil, Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Oil Services, Inc. (1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 73 - Hanly v. Riverside Methodist Hospitals (1991)
11 federal appellate · 105 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 Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · Helvering v. Mitchell · Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. · Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America · 19 Ohio St. 3d 100 - Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'If a contract is clear and unambiguous, the court need not go beyond the plain language of the agreement to determine the parties' rights and obligations; instead, the court must give effect to the agreement's express terms.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n action to recover for emotional distress may not be premised upon mere embarrassment or hurt feelings, but must be predicated upon a psychic injury that is both severe and debilitating. Proof of serious emotional distress may be offered in the form of expert medical testimony, but expert opinion is not indispensable. Lay witnesses acquainted with the plaintiff may also testify to significant changes that they have observed in the emotional or habitual makeup of the plaintiff.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor and lead him to exclaim, "Outrageous!" The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The rough edges of our society are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where some one's feelings are hurt. There must still be freedom to express an unflattering opinion, and some safety valve must be left through which irascible tempers may blow off relatively harmless steam.”
2 later decisions 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.