Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 890 NE2D 73 - Baker v. Tremco Inc.

Baker v. Tremco Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company · 7 Cal. 4th 1238 - Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. · 14 Cal. 4th 479 - Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc. · Raimonde v. Van Vlerah · General Motors Corp. v. Piskor

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

  1. “Whether [Ousley] called [Melton] a "cheat" or "a cheater", or that [Ousley] "was cheating the system", is not critical to this Court's decision, because it is not in dispute that the plain, natural, and intended meaning of [Ousley's] statements was that [Melton] "was cheating the PGA classification system." * x * The Indiana Section of the PGA, the National PGA Board of Control and the National PGA Board of Directors, all found that [Melton] was not eligibly employed and did not meet the requirements for an Indiana PGA Member A6 classification for 2006 and 2007. A review of the income earned by [Melton] in 2005 and 2006 support the indisputable fact that [Melton] was earning his living by playing golf and not by teaching golf. That was true for 2005 and 2006. [Melton] did not meet the employment eligibility requirements for an A-6 classification in Indiana for 2006, and he failed to provide the Indiana Section of the PGA sufficient documentation to support his employment eligibility for an A-6 classification for 2007. That's the truth. As a matter of law, [Ousley] is entitled to summary judgment on [Melton's] claim for defamation because [Ousley's] statements were true. [Melton] is also seeking to recover from [Ousley] based upon a claim of tortious interference with a business relationship. In order to recover for tor-tious interference, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a valid relationship; (2) defendant's knowledge of the exis tence of the relationship; (3) defe”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of Ohio.”
    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.