70 Ohio App. 2d 87 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Age must be a central consideration in determining when a minor’s reluctance in visiting with the noncustodial parent is enough to prevent visitation. R.C. 3109.04(A) allows the choice of a minor, who is twelve years of age or older, to become a factor in the determination of what is in the best interests of the child for custody purposes. R.C. 3109.04(A) and the decisions of this court in Foster [v. Foster (1974), 40 Ohio App. 2d 257 ( 69 O.O.2d 250 )] and Day [v. Day (Mar. 6, 1979), Franklin App. No. 78AP-733, unreported] recognize the difficulty in compelling a minor of a certain age to visit a parent with whom the child does not want to visit or live. Nevertheless, this court has never failed to protect the noncustodial parent’s right to visitation, in the absence of proof that the children, affirmatively and independently, do not wish to have any visitation.” (Emphasis sic.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Ohio App. 3d 350 - Pettry v. Pettry · Cottrell v. Cottrell

2. “[w]hile the trial court cannot *Page 12 fashion a remedy to return past visitations to the defendant by allowing the plaintiff to purge herself of contempt, the trial court can compel future compliance with the visitation schedule established by the court order, thus, allowing plaintiff to purge herself of any alleged contempt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. C.G. v. C.L., 90341 (6-26-2008)