83 Ohio App. 3d 493 - In Re Yeauger’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2023
20 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1673
Relies on In re Oliver · 16 Ohio App. 3d 329 - Courtney v. Courtney · 64 Ohio App. 3d 519 - Fry v. Fry · 26 Ohio App. 3d 164 - Andrulis v. Andrulis
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`It has long been the established law of the United States as expressed in In re Oliver (1948), 333 U.S. 257 , 275 , that constitutional procedural due process `requires that one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel, and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses in his behalf, either by way of defense or explanation.'" In re Yeauger (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 493 , 498 , quoting Courtney v. Courtney (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 329 , 334 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although we find that the trial court erred in ordering withholdings in excess of the limits established by Ohio and federal law, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering husband to pay combined support in excess of fifty percent of his net income. The withholding limits imposed by R.C. 3113.21 and Section 1673(b), Title 15, U.S. Code do not impose limitations on a trial court's ability to order support in excess of those limits, but only restricts the trial court's ability to order wage withholdings beyond those limits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“4. The potential penalties that could be imposed upon you, if you are found guilty of contempt for failure to pay support or for a failure to comply with, or an interference with, a visitation order or decree include a fine, imprisonment, and the requirement to post bond to ensure compliance.”
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.