13 Ohio App. 3d 388 - Murphy v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 70 Ohio App. 3d 418 - State, Ex Rel. Draiss v. Draiss (1990), 70 Ohio App. 3d 188 - Cole v. Cole (1990)
60 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 2 Ohio App. 3d 86 - Cheek v. Cheek
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are entitled to have the order of the [modification] court relate back to the date upon which the motion for modification of child support was filed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n view of the substantial time it frequently takes to dispose of motions to modify child support obligations, it is not an abuse of discretion of the trial court to order an increase in child support payments retroactive to the date of filing of the motion for modification of support.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he trial courthas considerable discretion in determining whether a child support order should be modified.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McGann v. McGann
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.