53 Ohio App. 3d 31 - Birath v. Birath’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably 102 Ohio App. 3d 378 - Walther v. Walther (1995), 83 Ohio App. 3d 559 - Layne v. Layne (1992)
108 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Blakemore v. Blakemore · Cherry v. Cherry · Berish v. Berish · Wolfe v. Wolfe · 165 Ohio St. 456 - Lower v. Ehrhart
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“should take into consideration * * * the earning abilities of the parties and the relative assets and liabilities of each.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Court finds that this guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate and not in the children's best interests. See R.C. § 3119.22 . Specifically, the Court has considered the factors in R.C. § 3119.23 and finds the following factors to be particularly relevant: (G) Disparity in income between parties or households and (K) the relative financial resources, other assets and resources, and needs of each parent * * * R.C. 3119.23 (L), another relevant factor, concerns the standard of living and circumstances of each parent and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage continued. The Court has set forth above the family's standard of living during the marriage. Father acknowledged that the children enjoy certain amenities that the average child may not, such as membership at a country club[.] "* * * "* * * "* * * While the Court does not necessarily find the amounts budgeted to be entirely credible, the Court notes these expenses here as an illustration that even if not as high as Mother testified, the children's expenses are still higher than a middle-class child's just based on the opportunities and advantages that the parties' wealth has provided them. For the foregoing reasons, the Court deviates from the child support guidelines.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.