Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 OHIOST2D 99 - Anderson v. Kellog

Anderson v. Kellog’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably In re Furnishings & Equipment for the Judge, Courtroom & Personnel for Courtroom Two (1981), 69 Ohio App. 3d 789 - Picciuto v. Lucas County Commissioners (1990)

27 state decisions

10019801990200020102020decided

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 Tollett v. Henderson · Ward v. Village of Monroeville · Taylor v. Hayes · State v. Kilbane · 43 Ohio App. 2d 93 - State v. Buchanan

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

  1. ““If the judge considers the appropriation made by the board pursuant to this section insufficient to meet all the administrative expenses of the court, he shall commence an action under Chapter 2731 of the Revised Code in the court of appeals for the judicial district for a determination of the duty of the board of county commissioners to appropriate the amount of money in dispute. The court of appeals shall give priority to the action filed by the juvenile judge over all cases pending on its docket. The burden shall be on the juvenile judge to prove that the appropriation requested is reasonably necessary to meet all administrative expenses of the court. If, prior to the filing of an action under Chapter 2731 of the Revised Code or during the pendency of the action, the judge exercises his contempt power in order to obtain the sum of money in dispute, he shall not order the imprisonment of any member of the board of county commissioners notwithstanding sections 2705.02 to 2705.06 of the Revised Code.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““***If, prior to the filing of an action under Chapter 2731. of the Revised Code or during the pendency of the action, any judge of the court exercises the contempt power of the court of common pleas in order to obtain the amount of money in dispute, the judge shall not order the imprisonment of any member of the board of county commissioners notwithstanding sections 2705.02 to 2705.06 of the Revised Code.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[The defendants'] guilty pleas served as a waiver of their right against self-incrimination.”
    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.