Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 Ohio App. 2d 76 - Bulloch v. Bulloch

21 Ohio App. 2d 76 - Bulloch v. Bulloch’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
July 1975
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 165 Ohio St. 456 - Lower v. Ehrhart · Peters v. Peters · 138 Ohio St. 187 - Tullis v. Tullis · 110 Ohio App. 546 - Clelland v. Clelland

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

  1. ““Since remarriage would he only a reason for the exercise of such jurisdiction . . ., and would not itself create jurisdiction, it would appear that Dailey inferentially holds that where the decree of alimony, even if predicated upon a separation agreement, is for an indefinite payment of alimony without any provision for termination, a reservation of jurisdiction for modification under change of circumstances might well he implied.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.