Reed v. Molnar’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

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

1. ““The owner or keeper of an animal described in section[s] 951.01 to 951.02 of the Revised Code, who permits it to run at large in violation of either of such sections, is liable for all damages caused by such animal upon the premises of another without reference to the fence which may enclose such premises. ” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burnett v. Rice · 60 Ohio App. 3d 3 - Rayner v. Lowe

2. ““ ‘Where there exists a legislative enactment commanding or prohibiting for the safety of others the doing of a specific act and there is a violation of such enactment solely by one whose duty it is to obey it, such violation constitutes negligence per se; but where there exists a legislative enactment expressing for the safety of others, in general or abstract terms, a rule of conduct, negligence per se has no application and liability must be determined by the application of the test of due care as exercised by a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances of the case.’ Eisenhuth v. Moneyhon (1954), 161 Ohio St. 367 , paragraph three of the syllabus. (Emphasis added.) Where a statute imposes a specific requirement or duty, the jury need only determine whether a prohibited act was committed or a required act was omitted, to find the violator of the statute negligent per se. ‘But where duties are undefined [in the statute], or defined only in abstract or general terms, leaving to the jury the ascertainment and determination of reasonableness and correctness of acts and conduct under the proven conditions and circumstances, the phrase negligence per se has no application.’ Swoboda v. Brown (1935), 129 Ohio 512 , 523.” (Emphasis sic.) Molnar, supra, at 79-80 , 21 O.O. 3d at 50-51, 423 N.E. 2d at 144 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burnett v. Rice

3. ““No person, who is the owner or keeper of horses, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, or geese, shall permit them to run at large in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley, or upon unenclosed land, or cause such animals to be herded, kept, or detained for the purpose of grazing on premises other than those owned or lawfully occupied by the owner or keeper of such animals. “The running at large of any such animal in or upon any of the places mentioned in this section is primafacie evidence that it is running at large in violation of this section. ” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burnett v. Rice