65 Ohio App. 2d 271 - Ahmed v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United Properties Ltd. v. Walgreen Properties, Inc. (2003), 67 Ohio App. 2d 49 - Ward v. Washington Distributors, Inc. (1980)
31 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 Rounds v. Owensboro Ferry Co. · 140 N.J. Eq. 171 - Andreula v. Slovak Gymnastic Union Sokol Assembly No. 223 · Gressitt v. Anderson · Wanous v. Balaco · 127 W. Va. 157 - Napper v. Rice
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]quity will not relieve a lessee of the consequences of his failure to give written notice of renewal of the lease within the time required by the provisions of the lease when the failure resulted from the negligence of the lessee unaccompanied by fraud, mistake, accident or surprise and unaffected by the conduct of the lessor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The record in the case at bar reveals that the parties recognized that the situation of the new holdover tenancy after April 1,1975, was far different from the original eight-year term. A new lease was offered to plaintiffs after April 1, 1975, which did not contain an option for renewal of the lease or for purchase of the leased premises. For that reason, plaintiffs did receive notice that the terms and conditions of the original lease had been modified. By holding over, plaintiffs impliedly accepted these modifications, including the loss of the option to purchase the leased premises. See Young Men’s Christian Assn. v. Harbeson* * * where the court held that a lessee’s actions, in holding over and paying rent while a new lease was being negotiated — where the lessor indicated that the purchase price contained in the original option to purchase the real estate would have to be renegotiated — amounted to an implied acceptance by the holdover lessee to a modification of the expired lease so that the lessee, under the new relationship, was a holdover tenant without an option to purchase at the price stated in the original lease.***””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A lease and its written option to purchase, contained therein, are independent contracts and, therefore, option to purchase cannot be exercised during holdover period.”
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.