134 Ohio App. 3d 579 - Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably 163 Ohio App. 3d 96 - Swartzentruber v. Orrville Grace Brethren Church (2005), State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. City of Akron (2004)
45 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 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · State ex rel. Renfro v. Cuyahoga County Department of Human Services · 57 Ohio App. 3d 4 - State v. Hart · 24 Ohio App. 3d 180 - Davis v. Trumbull County Children Services Board · 33 Ohio App. 3d 345 - Slabinski v. Servisteel Holding Co.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The public children services agency shall prepare and keep written records of investigations of families, children, and foster homes, and of the care, training and treatment afforded children, and shall prepare and keep such other records as are *Page 19 required by the department of job and family service. Such records shall be confidential, but, except as provided by division (B) of section 3107.17 of the Revised Code, shall be open to inspection by the agency, the director of job and family services, and the director of the county department of job and family services, and by other persons upon the written permission of the executive director.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'the due process rights of other subjects of the record are implicated[.]'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a court may conduct an in camera inspection of child-abuse records or reports and also has the inherent power to order disclosure of such records or reports where (1) the records or reports are relevant to the pending action, (2) good cause for such a request has been established by the person seeking disclosure, and (3) where admission of the records or reports outweighs the confidentiality considerations set forth in R.C. 5153.17 and R.C. 2151.421 (H)(1). Johnson , supra at 585 . *Page 20 {¶ 42} In the present case, the trial court conducted an in camera inspection of the SCDJFS's records regarding reports of abuse, neglect, and dependency specifically involving Melissa Brown and Jason Risner. (See Transcript of March 8, 2007 In Camera Inspection Hearing and March 8, 2007 Judgment Entry). Although Estep alleges on appeal that "the record is not clear that the trial court conducted the in camera inspection and [instead] relied on the representation of the Department of Job and Family Services Attorney”
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.