38 Ohio App. 2d 15 - Forester v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In this regard, there has emerged a divergency of views regarding the legal significance which should be attached to a forbearance based on an invalid claim. The earliest decisions took the fairly strict position that the surrender of an invalid claim can never be valid consideration because no real detriment is suffered by the claimant. Later decisions assuaged the harshness of this view by holding that a claim can be reasonably doubtful and still be a valid claim whose surrender would be sufficient consideration to support a contract. Finally, the modern trend of authority is to move still further away from an objective view of the actual validity of the surrendered claim and to focus primarily on whether the claimant’s subjective belief in its legitimacy is honest and sincere; the only remnants of an objective standard are that the asserted claim must not be ‘frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful’ and that asserted good faith belief ‘would affront the intelligence of ordinary and reasonable layman.’ Compared to the first cases on the subject, the most recent ones clearly require a minimal degree of objective certainty in the existent validity of the surrendered claim.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Ohio App. 3d 382 - Church of Bible Understanding v. Bill Swad Leasing Co.

2. “To be sure, it is a well-recognized principle of contract law that a promise to forbear to prosecute a claim on which one has a right to sue may be sufficient consideration to support a contract. * * * But, as the very statement of this rule should suggest, the promise to forbear has legal efficacy only in reference to the underlying claim which is surrendered by the passive act of forbearance. For it would be neither equitable nor legally sound to hold that the utterance of a promise to forbear is sufficient consideration in the sense that the performance of the promise results in a legal *Page 6 detriment to the promisor, if the promisor did not have a valid actionable claim to surrender.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kidd v. Kidd, 06ca119 (8-2-2007)

3. ““* * * £or un£jj receiIfciy the laws of this state did not allow a married woman who had delivered a bastard child to bring a paternity action against the putative father. However, in 1972, after this action was filed, the Supreme Court in Franklin v. Julian removed this obstacle by fashioning a new legal remedy: where the mother of a bastard child is married, she may file a civil action in Common Pleas Court for necessaries furnished in the past and for future support. Like statutory proceedings under R.C. [Chapter] 3111, she would, of course, have the burden of proving that the defendant was the putative father. * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 25 Ohio App. 3d 1 - Manley v. Howard