79 Ohio App. 3d 194 - Roach v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably 121 Ohio App. 3d 396 - Inscoe v. Inscoe (1997), 100 Ohio App. 3d 203 - Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre (1994)
36 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 Miller v. Miller · State v. Boston · Martin v. Martin · State v. Duncan · Normandy Place Associates v. Beyer
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.
“(a) that there was some occurrence startling enough to produce a nervous excitement in the declarant, which was sufficient to still his reflective faculties and thereby make his statements and declarations the unreflective and sincere expression of his actual impressions and beliefs, and thus render his statement or declaration spontaneous and unreflective, "(b) that the statement or declaration, even if not strictly contemporaneous with its exciting cause, was made before there had been time for such nervous excitement to lose a domination over his reflective faculties, so that such domination continued to remain sufficient to make his statements and declarations the unreflective and sincere expression of his actual impressions and beliefs, "(c) that the statement or declaration related to such startling occurrence or the circumstances of such startling occurrence, and "(d) that the declarant had an opportunity to observe personally the matters asserted in his statement or declaration.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Prior to trial, the court may cause an investigation to be made as to the character, family relations, past conduct, earning ability, and financial worth of each parent and may order the parents and their minor children to submit to medical, psychological, and psychiatric examinations. The report of the investigation and examinations shall he made available to either parent or his counsel of record not less than five days before trial, upon written request. The report shall be signed by the investigator, and the investigator shall be subject to cross-examination by either parent concerning the contents of the report. The court may tax as costs all or any part of the expenses for each investigation.” (Emphasis added.) See, also, Roach v. Roach (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 194 , 607 N.E.2d 35 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The magistrate is a subordinate officer of the trial court, not an independent officer performing a separate function. Therefore, 'a trial court may not "merely rubber-stamp”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mattis v. Mattis
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.