2 Ohio App. 3d 280 - Spence v. Spence’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It is first asserted that the trial court committed error by changing in the final judgment the custody granted to the husband by the temporary order without finding any of the requirements set up in Ohio Revised Code 3109.04(B). This contention is not to be maintained. Temporary orders are purely preliminary and interlocutory in nature. The journal entry of February 23, 1979 awarding custody to the husband is by its terms temporary in nature. Civil Rule 75(M) clearly grants authority for such an order “during the pendency of the action for divorce * * Such an order may issue upon affidavits and without oral hearing. Here there apparently was such a hearing but it is not contained in the transcripts before this court. There is nothing either in the decision of the court or in the order of temporary custody which indicates the judgment of the court was to effect more than temporary custody, and that pursuant to the rule it would endure only during the pendency of the proceedings. “ ‘There was therefore no prior custody “decree” to be modified. No decree of custody had been made. Simply an order of temporary custody pen-dente lite. The provisions of Section 3109.04(B) are only applicable to final decrees awarding custody in the action or subsequent modification of such final decrees.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 19 Ohio App. 3d 208 - Schoffner v. Schoffner

2. “I “The court erred in approving the referee’s findings of fact and recommendations.” II “The court erred in ordering into effect the proposals contained in the letter of 2-6-87, without a then current home study of Laura Boehmke, which was an abuse of discretion.” III “The court erred in refusing to permit Dr. Carole J. Lift, Ph.D., to testify, and to accept [sic] her report.” IV “The court’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence [and an abuse] of discretion in that it is contrary to the best interest and welfare of the minor child.” V “The court’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and an abuse of discretion in that the order is unduly oppressive and burdensome on the custodians of the minor child.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Ohio App. 3d 125 - In Re Boehmke