95 Ohio App. 7 - Widmer v. Fretti’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. ““The evidence is conclusive that vehicular traffic substantially increased during the operation of the gambling club, which traffic increase, plaintiffs say was annoying. However, when a right-of-way has been dedicated or is taken for a highway, an abutting owner must accept whatever increased volume of traffic results thereon. Although the purpose of a public highway is for the passage of the public, it may be conceded that land forming such highway was not taken for the purpose of enabling the public to pass over it only in the then known vehicles or for using it in the then known methods for the conveyance of property. [Cite cases.] Thousands of householders are seriously annoyed by the juggernauts of modern transportation, but have no right at law or in equity to abate the traffic or obtain damage resulting from such increased use of the highway.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clabaugh v. Harris

2. “Cases supporting recovery for personal discomfort or annoyance involve either excessive noise, dust, smoke, soot, noxious gases, or disagreeable odors as a premise for awarding compensation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc.