54 Ohio App. 3d 123 - Richards v. C. Schmidt Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2012
2 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. · Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship · Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. · Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co. · Knitz v. Minster Machine 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[SJtated that he read and understood the warnings, but that he ignored them. [The Plaintiff] improperly used the chemicals to clean himself after work even though he read the warnings cautioning against repeated contact with skin. That improper use, contrary to clear warnings, removed the existence of any genuine issue of material fact relative to the alleged failure to warn.”
1 later decision 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.