Porter v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As stated in the syllabus of Levi v. Levi (1960), 170 Ohio St. 533 : ‘The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act... is a measure designed to afford a practical method, in addition to other remedies, to enforce the legal obligation to support a dependent or dependents by one who has left the state in which the dependents reside. . . .’ (Emphasis supplied.) “See, also, Skinner v. Fasciano (1956), 75 Ohio Law Abs. 409 , in which the court, through Judge Steel, held that: “ ‘The purpose of the Support of Dependents Act is to enforce the civil liability against one who is in default of his obligation of support imposed by law and who has left the jurisdiction of the state where those who are entitled to the support reside, thereby obviating the necessity of subjecting the one charged with default of such support of being arrested and extradited to the jurisdiction of the default under the criminal law.’ (Emphasis supplied.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 35 Ohio App. 2d 56 - State of New Jersey v. Morales

2. “,££..# * * [W]here a father and his children have been deprived of their rights of visitation with each other by the mother’s removal of the children from this state without the father’s consent,' the trial court may condition the father’s duty to support the children upon the mother’s compliance with reasonable visitation "privileges unless the rndthef is unable fully to support the children; or they are-wanting for proper care and hy -reason .thereof they are about to become public charges.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Ohio App. 2d 331 - McCoy v. McCoy

3. “[T]he need of a child for visitation with a separated parent is a natural right of the child and is as worthy of protection as is the parent's right of visitation with the child. Thus, the failure, without just cause, of a divorced or separated parent having custody of a child to accord visitation rights to the other parent is not only an infringement of the child's right to receive the love, affection, training and companionship of the parent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arnold v. Arnold, Unpublished Decision (9-27-2005)