Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 Ohio App. 3d 543 - Campbell v. Johnson

87 Ohio App. 3d 543 - Campbell v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 174 Ohio App. 3d 398 - American Energy Corp. v. Datkuliak (2007), City of Hilliard v. First Industrial, L.P. (2005)

35 state decisions

1501993200020102020decided

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 Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. · Smith v. Flesher · 142 Ohio St. 91 - Lester v. Leuck · State v. Graham · 28 Ohio St. 3d 190 - State v. Gilmore

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

  1. “(1) the exclusion of such evidence must affect a substantial right of the party and (2) the substance of the excluded evidence was made known to the court by proffer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If a party claiming error is unable to establish the first requirement, the error is deemed harmless. If the party is unable to establish the second requirement, the error is deemed waived.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which * * * excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and * * * the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. Offer of proof is not necessary if evidence is excluded during cross-examination.”
    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.