Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 OHIOST2D 314 - Peebles v. Clement

Peebles v. Clement’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Shover v. Cordis Corp. (1991), Hardy v. VerMeulen (1987)

7 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

21019801990200020102020decided

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 Fuentes v. Shevin · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. · Phillips v. Commissioner · North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.

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

  1. “[t]he prejudgment attachment procedure provided for in R.C. Chapter 2715 fails to give a defendant sufficient due process guarantees under the United States and Ohio Constitutions due to the failure of the statute to provide for judicial supervision of the procedure.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he `due course of law' provision [in Section 16 , Article I , of the Ohio Constitution] is the equivalent of the `due process of law' provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “with the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of creditors.”
    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.