Gaab v. Ochsner’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2024
8 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 313 Ill. App. 3d 286 - Lutz v. Lutz · Steckler v. Steckler · Peters-Riemers v. Riemers · Lovcik v. Ellingson · Lucke v. Lucke
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) An action for a protection order commenced by a verified application alleging the existence of domestic violence may be brought in district court by any family or household member or by any other person if the court determines that the relationship between that person and the alleged abusing person is sufficient to warrant the issuance of a domestic violence protection order. An action may be brought under this section, regardless of whether a petition for legal separation, annulment, or divorce has been filed. (2) Upon receipt of the application, the court shall order a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days from the date of the hearing order. (3) Service must be made upon the respondent at least five days prior to the hearing. If service cannot be made, the court may set a new date. (4) Upon a showing of actual or imminent domestic violence, the court may enter a protection order after due notice and full hearing.... [[Image here]] (6) The court may amend its order or agreement at any time upon subsequent petition filed by either party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Frisk v. Frisk“The court may extend the terms of an existing order or, if an order is no longer in effect, grant a new order upon a showing that: (1) the respondent has violated a prior or existing order for protection; (2) the petitioner is reasonably in fear of physical harm from the respondent; (3) the respondent has engaged in acts of harassment or stalking within the meaning of section 609.749, subdivision 2; or (4) the respondent is incarcerated and about to be released, or has recently been released from incarceration. A petitioner does not need to show that physical harm is imminent to obtain an extension or a subsequent order under this subdivision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Odden v. Rath
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.