151 Ohio App. 3d 494 - Van Dusen v. Van Dusen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

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) Notwithstanding the provisions to the contrary in Civil Rule 60(B) and in accordance with this section, a person may file a motion for relief from a final judgment, court order, or administrative determination or order that determines that the person or a male minor referred to in division (B) of section 3109.19 of the Revised Code is the father of a child or from a child support order under which the person or male minor is the obligor. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the person shall file the motion in the division of the court of common pleas of the county in which the original judgment, court order, or child support order was made or issued or in the division of the court of common pleas of the county that has jurisdiction involving the administrative determination or order. If the determination of paternity is an acknowledgment of paternity that has become final under section 2151.232 , 3111.25 , or 3111.821 of the Revised Code or former section 3111.211 or 5101.314 of the Revised Code, the person shall file the motion in the juvenile court or other court with jurisdiction of the county in which the person or the child who is the subject of the acknowledgment resides. {¶ 32} "* * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sloat v. Sloat, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2006) · Hittle v. Palbas, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003)

2. “The legislature also was on notice that the statute it was enacting was in conflict with Civ.R. 60(B) and the body of case law surrounding that civil rule. In short, notwithstanding the doctrine of the separation of powers which has helped our state and federal governments to function for over 200 years, the legislature wished to tell the courts how to address matters normally reserved for the courts to determine. Such a disregard for the traditional powers of the other branches of government is especially egregious in the context of parenting and parentage matters. The legislature has in effect ordered the courts to enter new judgments taking away the only father a child has ever known if a DNA test indicates that the father and child are not genetically linked.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hittle v. Palbas, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003)

3. “Except as otherwise provided in sections 3119.961 to 3119.967 of the Revised Code, a party is entitled to obtain relief under section 3119.962 of the Revised Code regardless of whether the judgment, order, or determination from which relief is sought was issued prior to, on, or after October 27, 2000.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sloat v. Sloat, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2006)