75 Ohio App. 3d 711 - In Re Moorehead’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 101 Ohio App. 3d 115 - Inman v. Inman (1995), 144 Ohio App. 3d 76 - City of Columbus v. Spingola (2001)
26 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 · Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland · State v. Adams · Miller v. Miller · Palmore v. Sidoti
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any court that issues a dispositional order * * * may review at any time the child's placement or custody arrangement, the case plan prepared for the child * * *, the actions of the public children services agency or private child placing agency in implementing that case plan, the child's permanency plan, if the child's permanency plan has been approved and any other aspects of the child's placement or custody arrangement. In conducting the review, the court shall determine the appropriateness of any agency actions, the safety and appropriateness of continuing the child's placement or custody arrangement, and whether any changes should be made with respect to the child's permanency plan or placement or custody arrangement or with respect to the actions of the agency under the child's placement or custody arrangement. Based upon the evidence presented at a hearing held after notice to all parties and the guardian ad litem of the child, the court may require the agency, the parents, guardian, or custodian of the child, and the physical custodians of the child to take any reasonable action that the court determines is necessary and in the best interest of the child or to discontinue any action that it determines is not in the best interest of the child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is defined as more than an error of law or judgment. It is an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude of a court. State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 , 16 O.O.3d 169, 172 ; Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 . Furthermore, the reviewing court should be guided by the presumption that the findings of the trial court are correct. Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77 , 80 . See generally, In re Moorehead (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 711 , 721 . {¶ 13} Here, the juvenile court stated in its December 3, 2003 judgment entry,”
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.