Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 Ohio App. 3d 669 - Beavercreek Local Schools v. Basic, Inc.

71 Ohio App. 3d 669 - Beavercreek Local Schools v. Basic, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 193 W. Va. 119 - In Re State Public Building Asbestos Litigation (1995), Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc. (2002)

3 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

290199120002010decided

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 Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. · United States v. Bailey · Cullen v. Margiotta · O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. · Investors REIT One v. Jacobs

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

  1. ““[A] fine line must be drawn between an expert opinion which has incorporated the scholarly opinions of others, and the direct quotation of the opinions or conclusions of other experts, which is not permitted.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “an accrual of a cause of action is not delayed until the full extent of the resulting damage is known.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Supplementation of Responses. A party who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is under no duty to supplement his response to include information thereafter acquired, except as follows: “(1) A party is under a duty seasonably to supplement his response with respect to any question directly addressed to (a) the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters, and (b) the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial and the subject matter on which he is expected to testify. “(2) A party who knows or later learns that his response is incorrect is under a duty seasonably to correct the response.””
    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.