20 Ohio App. 3d 285 - Gatt v. Gedeon’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2016
20 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.
Relationships
Relies on Stanley v. Illinois · Whitehead v. General Telephone Co. · Johnson v. Norman · 150 Ind. App. 535 - A----. B v. C----. D · A.- B. v. C.- D.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The juvenile court has original jurisdiction of any action authorized under sections 3111.01 to 3111.19 of the Revised Code. An action may be brought under those sections in the juvenile court of the county in which the child, the child’s mother, or the alleged father resides or is found, or, if the alleged father is deceased, of the county in which proceedings for the probate of his estate have been or can be commenced, or of the county in which the child is being provided support by the department of human services of that county. If an action for divorce, dissolution, or alimony has been filed in a court of common pleas, that court of common pleas has original jurisdiction to determine if the parent and child relationship exists between one or both of the parties and any child alleged or presumed to be the child of one or both of the parties.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“as such term is defined in R.C. 3111.01 (A), i.e., there never was an express finding that Clell LaBonte, Sr. was either the natural or adoptive father of the minor child. Cases addressing the issue of the finality of a finding of paternity in a divorce decree have generally interpreted the finding in a divorce decree that the child”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Labonte v. Labonte“In re Mancini (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 124 , 2 OBR 138, 440 N.E.2d 1232 ; Gatt v. Gedeon (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 285 , 286-287 , 20 OBR 376, 377-378, 485 N.E.2d 1059 , 1060-1062 . Indeed, the finding that the child”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Labonte v. Labonte
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.