105 Ohio App. 3d 671 - Harris v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2026
13 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.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the court approves a plan under this division, * * * the court shall enter in the record of the case findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for the approval or the rejection or denial”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“R.C. 3109.04 (G) provides that in a contested divorce proceeding, any plan for shared parenting shall be filed at least thirty days prior to the hearing on the issue of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the children. Appellant filed his proposed shared parenting plan two days before the final hearing day. It was, therefore, not in compliance with R.C. 3109.04 . The court pointed out that it could still consider the same if it permitted Appellee to file her version and held further hearing if such would be in the best interest of the child . However, the court found that shared parenting periods of two weeks as proposed by Appellant's plan would not be in the child's best interest because of the considerable friction between the parties. Leave was thus not granted to Appellant to allow his late filing of his proposed shared parenting plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In our view, [R.C. 3109.04 (G)] was not intended by the legislature to divest the trial court of a reasonable degree of flexibility in considering shared parenting plans. Within its discretion, the trial court may relieve a party of the statutory deadline and grant a party's request to file a shared parenting plan within thirty days prior to the hearing. We also agree * * * that the statutory deadline implicates [the party's] right to due process. The critical inquiry is thus whether [the party] had an”
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.