84 Ohio App. 399 - Kinter v. Kinter’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2007
5 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.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Ohio, the rule is declared to be that ‘language used in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, whether by the judge, a party, counsel, jurors or witnesses, is protected if it be relevant to the matter under consideration, and the court have jurisdiction.’ Liles v. Gaster, 42 Ohio St. 631 , 635. “This privilege accorded to a witness is founded upon public policy. The administration of justice would be impeded if actions, such as the one herein, were permitted to be brought against a witness by a party to the action, for damages, claimed to be the result of the testimony given.””
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.