Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 OHIOAPP3D 586 - Wilder v. Perna

Wilder v. Perna’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2021

20 state decisions

180200720102020decided

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 Felton v. Felton · Putman v. Kennedy

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. “The threat of reputationfal] harm is particularly significant in this context because domestic violence restraining orders will not issue in the absence of the showing of a threat of violence. Thus, inasmuch as we previously have recognized the importance of reputation damage as a collateral consequence in other contexts, we see no reason not to do so here, for being the subject of a court order intended to prevent or stop domestic violence may well cause harm to, the reputation and legal record of the defendant. Moreover, ... domestic violence restraining orders have other collateral legal disabilities for their subjects. Once filed, they are available to agencies investigating future allegations involving the same family, and a trial judge making a future eusto-' dy determination also reasonably might consider the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order in making that sen-, sitive decision. Thus, in the sensitive and often explosively litigated context of family dysfunction and dissolution, there is a reasonable possibility that a domestic violence restmining order will have prejudicial collateral legal consequences for its subject, even after its expiration. Accordingly, the • subject of an improperly rendered domestic violence restraining order is likely to benefit from the vacatur of that order, and dismissal of his or her appeal as moot solely on the basis of that order’s expiration is improper.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “'in the sensitive and often explosively litigated context of family dysfunction and dissolution,'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “because it is reasonably possible that adverse collateral consequences may occur.”
    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.