Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 Ohio App. 3d 120 - Prosen v. Dimora

79 Ohio App. 3d 120 - Prosen v. Dimora’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School District Board of Education (1995), 108 Ohio App. 3d 637 - Lakota Local School District Board of Education v. Brickner (1996)

44 state decisions

1801992200020102020decided

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 O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. · Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. · Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc. · Fortner v. Thomas · State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock

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

  1. ““ ‘ “1. The review of proceedings of administrative officers and agencies, authorized by Section 4(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, contemplates quasi-judicial proceedings only, and administrative actions of administrative officers and agencies not resulting from quasi-judicial proceedings are not appealable to the Court of Common Pleas under the provisions of R.C. 2506.01. (Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 [ 51 O.O.2d 35 , 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970) ], approved and followed.” ’ ” 79 Ohio App.3d at 125 , 606 N.E.2d at 1053 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * An unclassified employee is not afforded the protection of the civil service regulations. See State ex rel. Canfield v. Frost (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 13 , 557 N.E.2d 1206 . “Appellant contends that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear his appeal under R.C. 2506.01. We disagree. As the Ohio Supreme Court stated in State ex rel. Rieke v. Hausrod (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 48, 49 , 13 O.O.3d 35, 35-36 , 391 N.E.2d 736 , 737:”
    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.