75 Ohio App. 3d 160 - Evans v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2026
19 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 39 Ohio App. 2d 97 - Adomeit v. Baltimore · Jo Ann Lyons v. Wilbur R. Johnson, Jo Ann Lyons v. F. J. Delarios, Jo Ann Lyons v. F. J. Delarios · 7 Ohio App. 3d 32 - Nickey v. Brown · 12 Ohio App. 3d 1 - Willis v. Rca Corp. · 67 Ohio App. 2d 156 - Furcello v. Klammer
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““‘If any party * * * fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, * * * the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others [may] * * * dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof * * *.’ “When a party has failed to abide by the discovery rules, a sanction imposed by the trial court under Civ.R. 37 is within the discretion of the trial court and generally will not be reversed on appeal unless it affirmatively appears from the record that the court abused its discretion and that the sanction was not just. Furcello v. Klammer (1980), 67 Ohio App.2d 156, 158 , 21 O.O.3d 454, 456 , 426 N.E.2d 187, 189 . A trial court does not abuse its discretion by ordering the dismissal of an action pursuant to Civ.R. 37 where the record does not show that the failure to comply with discovery orders was due to inability, such as illness, rather than willfulness, bad faith or any other fault of the noncomplying party. Rauchenstein v. Kroger Co. (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 178 , 3 OBR 204, 444 N.E.2d 445 .” Id., 75 Ohio App.3d at 163 , 598 N.E.2d at 1289 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Plaintiff] did attend the April 4, 1990 deposition as required by the entry. However, an examination of the transcript of the deposition reveals that [plaintiff] employed various tactics (memory losses, insisting that he could not answer certain questions regarding documents without examining the actual original documents, requesting the court reporter to search thorough his testimony to determine if a question had already been asked and answered) designed to impede discovery. In light of these unjustified tactics, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that [plaintiff] acted in bad faith.” Id. at 164 , 598 N.E.2d at 1289 . See, also, Graines v. Strozier (Apr. 6, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55195, unreported, 1989 WL 34719 ; Babb v. Ford (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 174, 181 , 535 N.E.2d 676, 683 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]very deposition intended to be presented as evidence must be filed at least one day before the day of trial or hearing unless for good *Page 8 cause shown the court permits a later filing.”
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.