Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 Ohio App. 3d 278 - Maphet v. Heiselman

13 Ohio App. 3d 278 - Maphet v. Heiselman’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2018

21 state decisions

701984199020002010decided

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 Nokes v. Nokes · 154 Ohio St. 530 - Miller v. Miller · 105 Ohio St. 401 - Thiessen v. Moore · 60 Ohio App. 2d 277 - Grant v. Grant · 53 Ohio App. 2d 285 - Bugay v. Bugay

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

  1. “(a) The child is mentally or physically disabled and is incapable of supporting or maintaining himself or herself. {¶ 67} "(b) The child's parents have agreed to continue support beyond the child's eighteenth birthday pursuant to a separation agreement that was incorporated into a decree of divorce or dissolution. {¶ 68} "(c) The child continuously attends a recognized and accredited high school on a full-time basis on and after the child's eighteenth birthday.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'[a] well-established exception to the rule occurs when the parties have reached a separation agreement which provides for child support beyond the age of majority, and such agreement is incorporated in the divorce decree. [ Maphet v. Heiselman , 13 Ohio App.3d 278 ] Id. at 279-280 [ 469 N.E.2d 92 (1984) ] (citations omitted) (parenthetical material added). In the present case, as was noted, the parties provided for support beyond the age of majority, which they were legally permitted to do.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.