Beagle v. Walden’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), State v. Bloomer (2009)
101 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 Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Department · 64 Ohio St. 3d 284 - Conley v. Shearer · Savoie v. Grange Mutual Insurance · Mominee v. Scherbarth · Califano v. Boles
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Because the obligation to offer uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is rooted in public policy and imposed by the legislature, the legislature is free to delimit the obligation. By obligating all motor vehicle liability insurers in a like manner, the General Assembly does not grant special privileges or immunities. Accordingly, the Privileges and Immunities Clause is inapplicable to this case." Id .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““An unduly narrow interpretation of the one-subject rule would lead to insuperable problems. States that have an extremely narrow interpretation of their versions of the one-subject rule are deluged with thousands of legislative proposals to amend statutes each year. The resulting profusion of legislation necessarily means that little attention can be paid to each matter. Often, in those states, as many as fifty different bills are presented and voted on as a single package. This practical response to an untenable situation defeats the purpose of a narrow interpretation of ‘one subject.’ “A narrow interpretation of ‘one subject’ could lead the General Assembly to contemporaneously enact multiple amendments, creating attendant problems. See State v. Wilson (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 334 , 673 N.E.2d 1347 .” Beagle , at 66, 676 N.E.2d at 510 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"`[T]he legislature is the final arbiter of public policy, unless its acts contravene the state or federal Constitutions.' * * * "The interpretation of R.C. 3937.18 (A)(2) advanced in Savoie did not meet with legislative approval. It was the General Assembly's prerogative to redress its dissatisfaction with new legislation." Id . at 62, 63.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.