Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 OHIOLAWABS 219 - Brush v. Eastern Motor Dispatch, Inc.

Brush v. Eastern Motor Dispatch, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2011

3 state decisions

101950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “* * * The difficulty respecting both of these elements of damage is that the jury had no means of determining how long in the future, less than permanently, the plaintiff would suffer from them. * * * [ 104 N.E.2d at 703 .]”
    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.