Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 OHIOST3D 11 - Apel v. Katz

Apel v. Katz’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
1
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

100 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio (2013), University Hospitals of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch (2002)

100 state decisions

6201998200020102020decided

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 Strother v. Hutchinson · Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center · Preston v. Murty · Zoppo v. Homestead Insurance · Wagner v. Roche Laboratories

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

  1. “'common-law tort in trespass upon real property occurs when a person, without authority or privilege, physically invades or unlawfully enters the private premises of another whereby damages directly ensue[.]'”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When a motion for a directed verdict has been properly made, and the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party, the court shall sustain the motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]e find that appellant's view of the measure of damages is unduly restrictive as applied to the facts of this case, and does not recognize that some flexibility is permissible in the ascertainment of damages suffered in the appropriate situation.”
    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.