70 Ohio App. 2d 93 - Richard v. Staehle’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably Investors REIT One v. Jacobs (1989), 656 F. Supp. 49 - Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. General Electric Co. (1986)
3 federal appellate · 30 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 Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall · Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst · Ishler v. Miller · Keaton Co. v. Kolby · Hocking Conservancy District v. Dodson-Lindblom Associates, 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Unless he represents that he has greater or less skill or knowledge, one who undertakes to render services in the practice of a profession or trade is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession or trade in good standing in similar communities.’ This standard has been applied to professionals in general. Richard v. Staehle, 70 Ohio App.2d at 124 , 434 N.E.2d 1379 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A standard of conduct as to what constitutes due care may be established by legislative enactment or judicial decision. In the absence of either, it is established by a consideration of the facts and cir cumstances of the particular case. Richard v. Staehle, 70 Ohio App.2d 93 [ 434 N.E.2d 1379 ] (1980) (citing Eisenhuth v. Moneyhon, 161 Ohio St. 367 [ 119 N.E.2d 440 ] (1954).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Thus, the cause of action under R.C. 2305.09 accrued at the time the allegedly negligent advice was given, i.e., in December of 1975; hence, we hold that this action was timely commenced against the appellant in his capacity as an accountant.” Id., 70 Ohio App.2d at 97 , 24 O.O.3d at 124 , 434 N.E.2d at 1383-1384 .”
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.