22 Ohio App. 3d 77 - Lang v. Reetz-Lang’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “mean that '[w]here one of the parties has willfully or knowingly refused or avoided consummation of the marriage, the other has a proper ground for annulment, although the marriage was valid otherwise.' " (Decree, 4.) {¶ 12} The trial court recognized that, in Lang, this court found that annulment requires a finding that the defendant is somehow at fault for not consummating the marriage. It questioned Lang's holding that annulment requires a finding of fault, observing that the case before it presented fairly unique circumstances that were most likely not considered in 1963 when the annulment statutes were adopted. It found that both parties strictly adhered to their Hindu faith and practices and opined that "[a] person should not be denied an annulment because his or her religious practices have caused a delay in consummation when the Hindu wedding ceremony forbids consummation before said ceremony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Patel v. Patel

2. “[o]n the parties' wedding night, they failed to consummate the marriage and, thereafter, neither party made any further attempt to consummate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Patel v. Patel

3. “the marriage between the parties was never consummated although otherwise valid,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Patel v. Patel