110 Ohio App. 3d 218 - Swartz v. Swartz’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2025
6 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 · Holcomb v. Holcomb · 82 Ohio App. 3d 462 - Adams v. Chambers
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f a spouse has engaged in financial misconduct, including, but not limited to, the dissipation, destruction, concealment, or fraudulent disposition of assets, the court may compensate the offended spouse with a distributive award or with a greater award of marital property.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“any payment or payments, in real or personal property, that are payable in a lump sum or over time, in fixed amounts, that are made from separate property or income, and that are not made from marital property.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he desirability of awarding the family home, or the right to reside in the family home for reasonable periods of time, to the spouse with custody of the children of the marriage,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mann v. Muktarian
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.