Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 Ohio App. 3d 271 - Jacobs v. Jacobs

62 Ohio App. 3d 271 - Jacobs v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
May 2000
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on County of San Diego v. Elavsky · Skinner v. Fasciano

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

  1. ““A responding court shall not stay the proceeding or refuse a hearing under sections 3115.01 to 3115.34, inclusive, of the Revised Code because of any pending or prior action or proceeding for divorce, separation, annulment, dissolution, habeas corpus, adoption or custody in this or any other state. * * * If the other action or proceeding is concluded before the hearing in the instant proceeding and the judgment therein provides for the support demanded in the complaint being heard, the court must conform its support order to the amount allowed in the other action or proceeding.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.