74 Ohio App. 3d 623 - Novak v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2014
6 federal appellate · 14 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 Vargo v. Travelers Insurance · Wagner v. McDaniels · 43 Ohio App. 3d 201 - Laverick v. Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron, Inc. · 11 Ohio App. 3d 27 - Wood v. Elzoheary · 51 Ohio App. 2d 220 - Inner City Wrecking Co. v. Bilsky
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]hould the party requesting prejudgment interest believe there is a compelling reason in favor of the motion, that party may by memorandum and affidavit bring the reason to the attention of the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Interest on a judgment, decree, or order for the payment of money rendered in a civil action based on tortious conduct and not settled by agreement of the parties, shall be computed from the date the cause of action accrued to the date on which the money is paid, if, upon motion of any party to the action, the court determines at a hearing held subsequent to the verdict or decision in the action that the party required to pay the money failed to make a good faith effort to settle the case and that the party to whom the money is to be paid did not fail to make a good faith effort to settle the case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]bjections should be made prior to trial and all objections must be made before actual presentation of the videotape at trial. If an objection is made at trial which has not been waived pursuant to Civil Rule 32(D)(3) or previously raised and ruled upon, such objection shall be made before the videotape deposition is presented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.