82 Ohio App. 3d 222 - Jordan v. Elex, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2015
16 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 Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · Strother v. Hutchinson · 2 Ohio App. 3d 447 - Jones v. Pierson · 79 Ohio App. 3d 640 - Vinci v. Ceraolo
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE ISSUE OF FUTURE LOST EARNINGS. {¶ 48} The Klasmeiers argue that the trial court erred by granting RSG's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of future lost earnings because they presented sufficient *Page 9 evidence to allow that question to be submitted to the jury. We disagree with this argument. {¶ 49} "[I]n awarding prospective damages, juries are confined to those damages reasonably certain to follow from the claimed injury. Generally in the case of an objective injury, such as the loss of a body member, the jury may draw their conclusions as to future pain and suffering from the fact of the injury alone, the permanency being obvious. However, in a case involving a subjective injury, expert medical testimony is needed to prove future pain and suffering or permanency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS BY NOT PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO USE THE DEPOSITION OF DR. THOMAS BENDER AS PART OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE IN CHIEF.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.