63 Ohio App. 3d 798 - Nardone v. Nardone’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 2008
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati District Council 51 · Zakany v. Zakany · 10 Ohio App. 3d 251 - Tucker v. Tucker · 50 Ohio App. 2d 263 - White v. White
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"R.C. 2705.03 requires `[n]otice which apprises the defendant of the nature of the charge against him so that he may prepare a defense * * *.' Cincinnati v. Cincinnati District Council 51 (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 197 , 64 O.O.2d 129 , 299 N.E.2d 686, paragraph two of the syllabus. The record indicates that the requirement of R.C. 2705.03 was met. The motion to show cause filed against Anthony stated that `* * * Nancy J. Guinn * * * requests this court to find * * * Defendant in Contempt of Court for failure to pay child support and/or medical bills as ordered * * *.' The motion to show cause notified Anthony that a court had ordered him to pay medical bills and that he allegedly had failed to pay them."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Since Medina is the court of record, and Nancy [the obligee] filed the support order in the court located in the county in which she resides, that court cannot refuse jurisdiction.” Id. at 801 , 580 N.E.2d at 449 .”
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.