Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 OHIOST2D 66 - Mitchem v. Johnson

Mitchem v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
4
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc. (1982), 84 Ohio App. 3d 96 - Lin v. Gatehouse Construction Co. (1992)

3 federal appellate · 59 state decisions

1901966197019801990200020102020decided

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 Carpenter v. Donohoe · Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp. · Glisan v. Smolenske · 52 Wash. 2d 830 - Hoye v. Century Builders, Inc. · 103 Ohio App. 340 - Vanderschrier v. Aaron

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

  1. “A duty is imposed by law upon a builder-vendor of a real-property structure to construct the same in a workmanlike manner and to employ such care and skill in the choice of materials and work as will be commensurate with the gravity of the risk involved in protecting the structure against faults and hazards, including those inherent in its site. If the violation of that duty proximately causes a defect hidden from revelation by an inspection reasonably available to the vendee, the vendor is answerable to the vendee for the resulting damages.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘It is the duty of the builder to perform his work in a workmanlike manner; that is, the work should be done as a skilled workman would do it; the law exacting from a builder ordinary care and skill only.’ [6 Cyc. 59.] It is certain that the builder is not an insurer. Nor is he required to respond to the owner on account of defective construction, except in accordance with the precepts of ordinary care, unless the obligation is affixed upon him through a special contract to do so. “Here, it is conceded there was no special contract requiring plaintiff to mend the roof in any event or make good any other part of the building which should fail because of latent defects in material not discoverable through exercising ordinary care to that end. Of course, there is no absolute warranty implied by law against the builder, for the measure of his duty, as above stated, is to be ascertained by reference to the standard of ordinary care and skill in the circumstances which beset the particular situation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““In the absence of express warranties, the overwhelming weight of authority is that caveat emptor controls the purchase and sale of a completed structure, and the vendor will not be strictly liable to the vendee on an implied warranty that the structure is fit or suitable for the purpose ordinarily intended, even though the vendor was responsible for its construction.””
    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.