Cheek v. Cheek

Decided June 29, 1982

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1982-06-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““* * * inflation which results in additional income to the person paying support or in additional costs of raising children by the custodian may be considered in determining the amount reasonable or necessary for child support, as well as whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances * * *. inflation alone will not serve to result in an automatic increase of child support if the inflationary effect on the person paying the support and the custodian is approximately the same, leaving the parties in substantially the same position as when the support order was originally entered. * *”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 2 Ohio App. 3d 421 - Bright v. Collins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-06-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Rand v. Rand (1985), 53 Ohio App. 3d 31 - Birath v. Birath (1988)

38 state decisions

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Strausbaugh, J.,

¶1 dissenting. I respectfully dissent from that part of the decision of the majority reversing in part the order of the trial court. An examination of the record indicates that there is sufficient, competent, credible evidence to support a finding by the trial court that there has been a substantial change in circumstances warranting an increase in the child-support order. Indeed, the majority in its decision finds that the trial court did not err “in finding a change of circumstances or in finding a need for a substantial increase in child support, …” and later that “… the record justifies a substantial increase in child-support payments, ….”

¶2 I find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and would affirm.