101 Ohio App. 3d 668 - James v. James’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 132 Ohio App. 3d 616 - Bowen v. Bowen (1999), 125 Ohio App. 3d 600 - Zeffe v. Zeefe (1998)
131 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 Blakemore v. Blakemore · Berish v. Berish · Hoyt v. Hoyt · 7 Ohio App. 3d 182 - Verbon v. Pennese · 83 Ohio App. 3d 559 - Layne v. Layne
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining the value of a marital asset; however, this discretion is not limitless. Our task on appeal is not to require the adoption of any particular method of valuation, but to determine whether, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, the court abused its discretion in arriving at a value.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although Mr. James asserted that the Saffron property was the subject of an option contract, he failed to establish the likelihood that the option would be exercised. He asserted that he was likely to incur $12,000 in capital gains taxes, but he failed to present any evidence of the basis for determining the amount of capital gain that he would realize as a result of a sale. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing *Page 7 before the referee, the alleged prospective tax consequences of the distribution of the Saffron property were speculative. Accordingly, we cannot say that the referee acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably by declining to reduce the value of the Saffron property by the estimated amount of capital gains tax that Mr. James alleged he would incur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T[his issue is raised for the first time on appeal. * * * [N]o evidence was presented on the issue of the tax consequences involved in the parties' assets; any attempt by the trial court to consider the tax consequences would be speculative and without evidentiary support. `[A] court need not consider tax consequences that are speculative.'”
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.