88 Ohio App. 3d 220 - Khamis v. Everson’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Murphy v. Buonato (1996), 39 Cal. 4th 1112 - Priebe v. Nelson (2006)
33 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 80 Ohio App. 3d 21 - Flint v. Holbrook · 5 Ohio App. 3d 179 - Garrard v. McComas · Pulley v. Malek · 44 Ohio App. 94 - Bevin v. Griffiths
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We conclude that by enacting R.C. 955.28(B), the legislature intended to protect those people ivho are not in a position to control the dog. In contrast, we believe that the legislature did not intend to protect those persons (the owner, keeper or harborer of the dog) who have, by the terms of the statute, an absolute duty to control the animal. “Accordingly, we hold that a ‘keeper’ is not within the class of people that the legislature intended to protect by enacting the strict liability provision contained in R.C. 955.28(B). In the present case, appellant, as a ‘keeper’ of a dog as defined in R.C. 955.28(B), cannot avail himself of the protections afforded by that statute. With this holding, we are not creating an additional exception to the rale of absolute liability in contravention of [Pulley v.] Malek [(1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 95 , 25 OBR 145, 495 N.E.2d 402 ]. Rather, we are merely ruling that the maintenance of a suit under R.C. 955.28(B) by the keeper of a dog against its owner ‘does not come within the clear meaning of the language used, and the statute should not be given force beyond its plain terms.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Khamis, 88 Ohio App.3d at 227 , 623 N.E.2d at 687 citing Kleybolte, 89 Ohio St. at 66, 105 N.E. at 193.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the dog,..."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“A harborer is one who 'has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives, and silently acquiesces to the dog's presence.'”
4 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.