87 Ohio App. 3d 768 - Flanagan v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 138 Ohio App. 3d 801 - Fontbank, Inc. v. Compuserve, Incorporated (2000), Hester v. Dwivedi (2000)
88 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 Roe v. Wade · Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. P Casey P Casey · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Peterson v. Teodosio · Bruni v. Tatsumi
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When considering a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court must construe the material allegations in the complaint, along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party as true.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Assignment of Error No. 1: “The trial court committed prejudicial error in considering, as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civil Rule 12(C), the ‘motion of CompuServe, Incorporated for judgment on the pleadings and/or summary judgment on all counts of plaintiffs complaint,’ which referenced in its memorandum in support facts and documents outside the pleadings and which contained an affidavit as an exhibit. “Assignment of Error No. 2: “The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting judgment on the pleadings against plaintiff/appellant as to claims for breach of contract, implied or quasi contract, detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel, and fraud in the inducement (claims one, three, four, five and six respectively of the complaint) which were based upon an oral product development agreement, on the basis of an integration clause in a subsequent written non-exclusive product licensing agreement. “Assignment of Error No. 3: “The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting judgment on the pleadings against plaintiff/appellant as to claim six’s claim of fraud in the inducement as to the written non-exclusive product licensing agreement. “Assignment of Error No. 4: “The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting judgment on the pleadings against plaintiff/appellant as to claim six’s claim of fraud in the inducement as to the forum managers agreement. “Assignment of Error No. 5: “The trial court committed prejudicial error in granti”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[W]hether parents of a child born with congenital defects have a cause of action against physicians who fail to diagnose and/or inform the parents of the defect within the time period that they could choose to terminate the pregnancy * * * [and] whether the child born with the congenital defects has a cause of action against the physician.””
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.