Nokes v. Nokes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] separation agreement providing for the support of children eighteen years of age or older is enforceable by the court of common pleas.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. Adams · 53 Ohio App. 2d 160 - Dickerson v. Ferrell

2. “"(A) The reenactment, amendment, or repeal of a statute does not, except as provided in division (B) of this section: "(1) Affect the prior operation of the statute or any prior action taken thereunder; "(2) Affect any validation, cure, right, privilege, obligation, or liability previously acquired, accrued, accorded, in incurred thereunder; "(3) Affect any violation thereof or penalty forfeiture, or punishment incurred in respect thereto, prior to the amendment or repeal; "(4) Affect any investigation, proceeding, or remedy in respect of any such privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment; and the investigation, proceeding, or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment imposed, as if the statute had not been repealed or amended. "(B) If the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment for any offense is reduced by a reenactment or amendment of a statute; the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, if not already imposed, shall be imposed according to the statute as amended."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Young v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., Unpublished Decision (1-8-2004) · 63 Ohio App. 3d 559 - Smith v. Denihan

3. ““The Act lowering the age of majority in this state to age 18 reveals no intention of the General Assembly that it should apply any way other than prospectively, and R.C. 1.58 specifically requires prospective application. “For the foregoing reasons, the statutory change in the age of majority can have no application to the subject decretal support obligations, because such change, in and of itself, has no effect upon pre-1974 support decrees.” Nokes v. Nokes (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 1, at 9 [ 1 O.O.3d 1 ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sandy v. Sandy, Unpublished Decision (8-9-2004) · 12 Ohio App. 3d 94 - Nuckols v. Nuckols