Lemley v. Kaiser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

98 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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The burden of showing that testimony [should] be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the parties seeking to exclude it.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Schafer, 4-08-07 (12-1-2008) · State v. Walls

2. ““(D) No child shall be placed or received for adoption or with intent to adopt unless placement is made by a county human services department that has a children services division, county children services board, the department of human services, an organization that is authorized to place children for adoption under a certificate of the department of human services, or custodians in a foreign state or country, or unless all of the following criteria are met: “(1) Prior to the placement and receiving of the child, the parent or parents of the child personally have applied to, and appeared before, the probate court of the county in which the parent or parents reside, or in which the person seeking to adopt the child resides, for approval of the proposed placement specified in the application and have signed and filed with the court a written statement showing that the parent or parents are aware of their right to contest the decree of adoption subject to the limitations of section 3107.16 of the Revised Code; “(2) The court ordered an independent investigation of the proposed placement to be conducted as provided in section 3107.12 of the Revised Code, and after completion of the investigation the court determined that the proposed placement is in the best interest of the child; “(3) The court has approved of record the proposed placement * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Ohio App. 3d 14 - In Re Adoption of Murphy · In re A.R.M.

3. ““* * * R.C. 5103.16 was to provide some measure of judicial control over the placement of children for adoption which is not conducted under the auspices of a statutorily recognized and authorized agency.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Adoption of Bruner, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2006) · 53 Ohio App. 3d 14 - In Re Adoption of Murphy