16 Ohio App. 3d 75 - In Re Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““After an action has been brought and before judgment, the alleged father and the mother may, subject to the approval of the court, compromise the action by an agreement in which the parent and child relationship is not determined but in which a specific economic obligation is undertaken by the alleged parent in favor of the child. In reviewing the obligation undertaken by the alleged parent, the court shall consider the interest of the child, the factors set forth in division (E) of section 3111.13 of the Revised Code, and the probability of establishing the existence of a parent and child relationship in a trial.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. LaBonte v. LaBonte · Labonte v. Labonte

2. “This statutory provision permits a putative father to agree to support requirements without admitting to or being bound by a paternity determination. In re Smith (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 75 , 77 , 16 OBR 79, 82, 474 N.E.2d 632 , 635 . Moreover, the mere statement that Jean-Paul LaBonte was the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Labonte v. Labonte