82 Ohio App. 3d 688 - Deaton v. McIntosh’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Seeley v. Expert, Inc. · 51 Ohio App. 3d 148 - In Re Burchfield · Bryant v. Dayton Casket Co. · Sharp v. Union Carbide Corp.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the language of R.C. 1925.10 is clear and unambiguous and should be applied as written. * * * Further, the provisions of R.C. 1925.10 are not discretionary. The use of the word 'shall' makes the statute mandatory, there being no other legislative intent required.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mustafa v. Al-Bayer
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.