151 Ohio App. 3d 574 - Patterson v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
June 2015
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. · Colley v. Bazell · Hoyt v. Hoyt · Erb v. Erb · 106 Ohio App. 3d 59 - Rite Rug Co., Inc. v. Wilson
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nlike former R.C. 742.47 , former R.C. 145.56 [which pertained to PERS accounts] does not characterize benefits due under the fund as `sums of money due or to become due to any person * * *.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“for the purpose of enforcing the order or carrying into effect the manifest intentions of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“alienation through execution, garnishment, attachment, etc.”
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.