Case Citator › Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories

Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
61 Ohio St.2d 197
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
397 of 397
Citing cases (total)
2,064
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories remains good law: all 397 flagged citations have been read, and no adverse treatment was confirmed. The reviewed Ohio opinions consistently applied Knapp's rule that an appellant's failure to supply the transcript or other record material needed to resolve assigned errors requires the appellate court to presume regularity in the proceedings below.
More on how this was screened

The nearby word “overruled” almost always disposed of an assignment of error after applying Knapp; it did not treat Knapp adversely. One opinion flagged for “called into doubt” used that phrase for an unsupported factual contention, and the retrieved text of nine opinions contained no citation to Knapp.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,064 later cases cite Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories; 397 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 397 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace