Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 OHIOST2D 7 - Barrett v. Singer Co.

Barrett v. Singer Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
3
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 92 Ill. 2d 157 - Galowich v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1982), 109 Ohio App. 3d 786 - Vanguard Transportation Systems, Inc. v. Edwards Transfer & Storage Co. (1996)

58 state decisions

370197919801990200020102020decided

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 Long v. Straus · 20 Ohio Misc. 66 - Village of Commercial Point v. Branson · 8 Ohio App. 2d 229 - Thornton v. Mid America Finance & Loan Co. · 55 Ohio App. 85 - Searles v. Union Cent. L. Ins. 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The expense of videotape depositions not used as evidence at trial is to be borne by the party taking such depositions and not taxed as costs in the action.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(D) Costs; Videotape Depositions {¶ 70} "(1) The expense of videotape as a material shall be borne by the proponent. {¶ 71} "(2) The reasonable expense of recording testimony on videotape, the expense of playing the videotape recording at trial, and the expense of playing the videotape recording for the purpose of ruling upon objections shall be allocated as costs in the proceeding in accordance with Civil Rule 54. {¶ 72} "(3) The expense of producing the edited version of the videotape recording shall be costs in the action, provided that the expense of the videotape, as a material, shall be borne by the proponent of the testimony. {¶ 73} "(4) The expense of a copy of the videotape recording . . . shall be borne by the party requesting the copy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Thus, the judicial decisions prior to the adoption of the Ohio Rules of Superintendence reveal that the expense of depositions taken de bene esse is to be taxed as costs only if the depositions were used at trial, unless there are overriding considerations.” (Emphasis sic, footnote omitted.) Id., 60 Ohio St.2d at 9 , 14 O.O.3d at 123 , 396 N.E.2d at 219 .”
    1 later decision 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.