63 Ohio App. 2d 76 - Siegler v. Batdorff’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably 11 Ohio App. 3d 135 - First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Toledo v. Perry's Landing, Inc. (1983), 13 Ohio App. 3d 93 - Porter v. Miller (1983)
39 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 Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. · Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. · 56 Ohio App. 2d 144 - Eisenberg v. Peyton · 44 Ohio App. 2d 115 - Fair v. School Employees Retirement System · State ex rel. Jacobs v. Municipal Court
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * One situation in which the Civil Rules would be clearly inapplicable is when the proceeding is established by a statute which also sets out specific procedures to be followed. See, e.g., R.C. 1923.07 (proceedings on default of defendant). The Civil Rules will also be inapplicable if their application would frustrate the purpose of the proceeding. State, ex rel. Civil Rights Comm., v. Gunn (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 262, 266-267 .” Id. at 80, 17 O.O. 3d at 262, 408 N.E. 2d at 1386 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(C) Exceptions. These rules, to the extent that they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable, shall not apply to procedure * * * (3) in forcible entry and detainer * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * In a landlord-tenant situation the provisions of R.C. Chapter 1923 must be read in light of R.C. Chapter 5321, which governs the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants. These code sections set out a three-step process which must be followed by a landlord before a court will order a tenant to vacate the premises. The three steps are: (1) a notice of termination of tenancy (R.C. 5321.17); (2) a notice to vacate the premises (R.C. 1923.04); and (3) a complaint in forcible entry and detainer. In the present case the tenancy was from month to month. Consequently, the notice of termination had to be given at least 30 days prior to termination. R.C. 5321.17(B). Thus, when a tenant is living by a month-to-month tenancy, a minimum of 33 days must be allowed before the landlord may initiate proceedings for ejectment.” Siegler v. Batdorff, supra, at pages 82-83. (Emphasis added.)”
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.