77 Ohio App. 3d 500 - Youssef v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 95 Ohio App. 3d 664 - Klesch v. Reid (1994), 101 Ohio App. 3d 83 - Pisani v. Pisani (1995)
43 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 City of Rome v. United States · O'Day v. Webb · Ojalvo v. Board of Trustees · Cleveland Trust Co v. Willis · Helmick v. Republic-Franklin Insurance
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Regarding requests for admissions, it is irrelevant that the matters requested to be admitted are central to the case or must be proven by the requesting party at trial. The function of Civ.R. 36(A) is to narrow the issues for trial to genuinely disputed issues. Therefore, unless the responding party objects to the request, the request must be answered. When the responding party justifiably believes that the matter requested to be admitted is a disputable issue, the responding party's only option is to deny the matter on that basis. Even if the requesting party is then able to prove the matter requested to be admitted, the responding party should not be charged for the cost of proving that issue under Civ.R. 37(C) since his denial based on a belief that the matter was disputable was a good reason for not admitting the matter." (Internal citations and paragraph break omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"If a party, after being served with a request for admission under Rule 36, fails to admit the genuineness of any documents or the truth of any matter as requested, and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of the document or the truth of the matter, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay him the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees. Unless the request had been held objectionable under Rule 36(A) or the court finds that there was good reason for the failure to admit or that the admission sought was of no substantial importance, the order shall be made."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the matter is admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, not less than twenty eight days after service thereof or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addresses to the matter signed by the party by the party's attorney.”
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.