Wolfe v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 302 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 347 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The courts of this state have always derived the power to award ‘alimony’ from the statutory law. The current provisions of R.C. 3105.18 set forth an 11-factor guide for determining, first, ‘whether alimony is necessary,’ and,' secondarily ‘the nature, amount, and manner of’ payments of the sum allowed as ‘alimony.’ Many of those factors have little relevance to a possible need for sustenance, e.g., the duration of the marriage, the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage, the property brought to the marriage by either party, the contribution of a spouse as homemaker, and the relative situation of the parties. On the other hand, those factors are quite pertinent to considerations of the distributions of marital assets and liabilities — the property settlement. “Only after a division of property is made, is the court statutorily authorized to consider whether an additional amount is needed for sustenance, and for what period will such necessity persist. “Any grant of ‘alimony’ for sustenance is necessarily co-extensive with the court’s determination that it is needed and warranted. Such authentication and supervision is accomplished through the continuing jurisdiction of the court.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 414 , 75 O.O. 2d at 482, 350 N.E. 2d at 423 .”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 Ohio App. 3d 61 - Kahn v. Kahn · 63 Ohio App. 3d 671 - Mochko v. Mochko

2. “the decree is ... not subject to modification if the alimony award is not solely for support but is in settlement of the property rights of the parties.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Commissioner · Crouser v. Commissioner

3. “It is self-evident that a separation agreement, which purports to set a fair level of alimony for sustenance, as well as divide and distribute the property of the parties and settle their affairs, is not necessarily continually fair and equitable thereafter. We may assume that it is fair at the moment of its execution, and that it continues to be *Page 16 fair at the time of divorce if the parties offer it for inclusion and merger into the decree. At that point, all that can be said is that it sets a fair and equitable `initial level' of obligations.* * * {¶ 53} "Such initially fair agreements may be rendered manifestly oppressive in countless situations, such as where the custodian of the children fails to provide proper care and guidance, or where the receiver of alimony makes no attempt at self-support * * * or where the economic situation of either or both of the parties drastically changes. The holding in this case, that a court has continuing modification jurisdiction over alimony for sustenance awards, is to assure that such awards are continually just.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 21817 (11-16-2007) · Murphy v. Murphy