Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 Ohio App. 3d 726 - Seeholzer v. Kellstone, Inc.

80 Ohio App. 3d 726 - Seeholzer v. Kellstone, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
3
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2011

7 state decisions

40199220002010decided

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 Hawkins v. Ivy · Wills v. Frank Hoover Supply · McKinney v. Hartz & Restle Realtors, Inc. · Gaboury v. Ireland Road Grace Brethren, Inc. · Lucier v. Meriden-Wallingford Sand & Stone Co.

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

  1. “"Courts have invariably recognized that it is willful or wanton conduct on the part of a landowner or occupier to erect or maintain a wire or cable across a road or path where he knows or has reason to believe that trespassers ride their vehicles, where the wire or cable is not readily discernible, marked or otherwise warned against. [Citing cases from seven jurisdictions]."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is well recognized that acquiescence by a landowner in the public use of the premises can amount to a permission or license, thereby elevating the entrant's status from that of trespasser to license and that continued tolerance of the presence of trespasser can amount to acquiescence.”
    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.