8 Ohio App. 3d 266 - Adamson v. May Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 68 Ohio App. 3d 359 - Ashcroft v. Mount Sinai Medical Center (1990), 105 Ohio App. 3d 728 - Mayes v. City of Columbus (1995)
7 federal appellate · 35 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 50 Ohio St. 2d 69 - Feliciano v. Kreiger · State v. Myers · Kennedy v. Walcutt · 55 Ohio App. 2d 59 - Epling v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co. · 150 N.J. Super. 360 - Zalewski v. Gallagher
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A contrary rule would change the elements of this action and exclude recovery in any case where there has been a bind-over order or an indictment, regardless of its fanciful or unfounded source. The ability to rebut probable cause presumed from an indictment is particularly significant, since the grand jury’s evidence is usually secret and beyond the plaintiffs reach. If the probable cause presumption were not rebuttable, a truly malicious accusor could lie at the preliminary hearing or the grand jury sessions and thereby obtain a bind-over order or an indictment which screened him from civil liability for his malicious prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In all civil actions and proceedings ... a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of non-persuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party or whom it was originally cast.”
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.