Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 OHIOST3D 420 - In re James

In re James’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

138
cited by 138 later decisions
1
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

138 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Fisher v. Hasenjager (2007), Kougher v. Kougher (2011)

138 state decisions

760200720102020decided

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 Santosky v. Kramer · Davis v. Flickinger · In re Murray · 52 Ohio St. 2d 89 - Perales v. Nino · In re Adoption of Ridenour

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

  1. “whether a trial court, when modifying a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children, should consider only whether the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child, or whether the trial court has an obligation to adhere to the conjunctive statutory requirements to find both a change in the circumstances of the child, the residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared-parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The statute allows a court to modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities only if (1) 'a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child's residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree' and (2) the modification is in the best interest of the child.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) precludes a trial court from modifying a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen since the time of the decree or were unknown to it at that time, not only that a change has occurred in circumstances of the child, the child's residential parent, or either parent subject to a shared-parenting decree, but also that the modification of the prior custody decree is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.”
    2 later decisions 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.