Harris v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education (1983), 61 Ohio App. 3d 677 - Korn v. Ohio State Medical Board (1988)
3 federal appellate · 26 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 54 Ohio St. 2d 235 - State ex rel. Ogan v. Teater · 1 Ohio App. 2d 336 - In Re Removal of Zeigler · State ex rel. Vukovich v. Youngstown Civil Service Commission · In re Removal of Zeigler
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Pursuant to R.C. 124.34, employees can appeal reduction orders by their appointing authorities to the board. However, this language indicates that if the board upholds the reduction, only orders of reduction in pay for disciplinary reasons can be appealed to a court in the county of the employee’s residence. <<* * * “We hold that involuntary reductions in pay must comply with R.C. 124.34. Pursuant to R.C. 124.34, only reductions for disciplinary reasons can be appealed to a court; and an appeal must be brought, if at all, in the county of the employee’s residence. Because of this requirement, the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County had no subject-matter jurisdiction to hear appeals of appellants who resided in Montgomery County.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“not substitute its judgment for the Board's where there is some evidence supporting the Board's Order,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The word party is defined by statute. A party is ‘[t]he person whose interests are the subject of an adjudication by an agency.’ R.C. 119.01(G). “The Administrative Procedure Act defines person as ‘a person, firm, corporation, association, or partnership.’ R.C. 119.01(F). “To be a party one must first be a person. The Administrative Procedure Act’s definition of the word person does not include the state. Nor does it include any state agency. Nor does it include the director of any agency. Nor is the state on the relation of any department, director or agency a person. “If the General Assembly had intended to give the director of a state department or the state on relation of the director a right of appeal, it could have done so. It did not. In fact, the General Assembly gave both the employee and the director a right of appeal in those instances where it so intended and did not give the right of appeal where it so intended. In R.C. 124.34, the pertinent language reads as follows: “ ‘In cases of removal or reduction in pay for disciplinary reasons, either the appointing authority or the officer or employee may appeal from the decision of the State Personnel Board of Review * * * to the Court of Common Pleas of the county in which the employee resides in accordance with the procedure provided by Section 119.12 of the Revised Code.’ ””
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.