Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 Ohio App. 3d 1 - Moore v. Moore

175 Ohio App. 3d 1 - Moore v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably O'Connor v. O'Connor (2009), Buckingham v. Buckingham (2018)

30 state decisions

220200820102020decided

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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Blakemore v. Blakemore · Goldberg v. Kelly · C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In an action for divorce * * *, a court may award all or part of reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses to either party if the court finds the award equitable. In determining whether an award is equitable, the court may consider the parties' marital assets and income, any award of temporary spousal support, the conduct of the parties, and any other relevant factors the court deems appropriate.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Potential income” means * * * the following for a parent who the court pursuant to a court order, or a child support enforcement agency pursuant to an administrative child support order, determines is voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed: (a) Imputed income that the court or agency determines the parent would have earned if fully employed as determined from the following criteria: (i) The parent’s prior employment experience; (ii) The parent’s education; (iii) The parent’s physical and mental abilities, if any; (iv) The availability of employment in the geographic area in which the parent resides; (v) The prevailing wage and salary levels in the geographic area in which the parent resides; (vi) The parent’s special skills and training; (vii) Whether there is evidence that the parent has the ability to earn the imputed income; (viii) The age and special needs of the child for whom child support is being calculated under this section; (ix) The parent’s increased earning capacity because of experience; (x) Any other relevant factor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] person or corporation having possession of, control of, or claiming an interest in property, whether real, personal, or mixed, out of which a party seeks a division of marital property, a distributive award, or an award of spousal support or other support, may be made a party defendant.”
    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.