84 Ohio App. 3d 96 - Lin v. Gatehouse Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious (1996), 138 Ohio App. 3d 801 - Fontbank, Inc. v. Compuserve, Incorporated (2000)
97 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 Peterson v. Teodosio · Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc. · Haddon View Investment Co. v. Coopers · Hill v. Sonitrol of Southwestern Ohio, Inc. · Bruce v. Riddle
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) construes the material allegations in the complaint, with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party as true, and (2) finds beyond doubt, that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * Under this analysis, if the promisee * * * intends that a third party should benefit from the contract, then that third party is an `intended beneficiary' who has enforceable rights under the contract. If the promisee has no intent to benefit a third party, then any third-party beneficiary to the contract is merely an `incidental beneficiary,' who has no enforceable rights under the contract. * * [T]he mere conferring of some benefit on the supposed beneficiary by the performance of a particular promise in a contract [is] insufficient; rather, the performance of that promise must also satisfy a duty owed by the promisee to the beneficiary.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[A] motion to dismiss filed after the pleadings have closed * * * is appropriately considered a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C).'”
2 later decisions 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.