71 Ohio App. 3d 46 - Saunders v. McFaul’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
228 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably 94 Ohio App. 3d 579 - Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), 124 Ohio App. 3d 581 - Zemcik v. LaPine Truck Sales & Equipment Co. (1998)
228 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Davidson v. Cannon · O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. · Hounshell v. American States Insurance · Williams v. First United Church of Christ
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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reviewing court evaluates the record * * * in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party * * *. [T]he motion must be overruled if reasonable minds could find for the party opposing the motion.”
65 later decisions quote this exact passage“Civ.R. 56(C) specifically provides that before summary judgment may be granted, it must be determined that: (1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“*Page 8 {¶ 15} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. More specifically, she argues that they discriminated against her based on her sex. We find that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding appellant's sex discrimination claim. {¶ 16} Under R.C. 4112.02 (A), it is”
2 later decisions 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.