87 Ohio App. 3d 66 - McGill v. Roush’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2025
9 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 Gay v. Parpart · 109 Ill. App. 3d 911 - Rothert v. Rothert · 11 Ohio App. 3d 91 - Zacek v. Zacek · 45 Ohio App. 2d 132 - Logue v. Wilson · 105 Ohio St. 346 - Black v. Sylvania Producing Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, it was ultimately the decision of the trial court to order physical partition or a judicial sale of the property, regardless of the opinion of the commissioners. R.C. § 5807.05 states, in pertinent part: "the sheriff shall cause to be set off and divided to the plaintiff or each interested party, whatever part and proportion of the estate as the court of common pleas orders." (Emphasis added.) The commissioners' powers to evaluate the property and recommend physical partition always remain subject to the ultimate approval of the court of common pleas: "The partition power of commissioners has been characterized as 'quasi-judicial' Forest Park Properties, Inc. v. Pine (1966), 9 Ohio App.2d 348, 355 , 38 Ohio Op.2d 427, 431 , 224 N.E.2d 763, 768 . Commissioners have 'very large powers' in making partition. Terrell v. Leonard (1910), [ 32 Ohio Cir. Dec. 34 ], 17 [Ohio] C.C. (N.S.) 89, 92. However ... commissioners' powers are ultimately subject to court authority; commissioner partition reports may be rejected, modified, or approved by the trial court. An order partitioning property extinguishes a tenant's rights in the whole property, and establishes the tenant's exclusive right of ownership in the part of the property set off to him. Since it is an order creating and extinguishing rights in specific property, it is an exercise of the judicial power, and cannot be entirely delegated to a nonjudicial officer. A judge must remain ultimately responsible for the exercise of ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richter v. Richter · Platt v. Platt“sufficient for the commissioners to answer the question: why is it impossible to divide the 3. The trial court considered Combs' testimony regarding what Wayne Township and Butler County officials told him about the zoning difficulties only to the extent these conversations formed the basis of Combs' testimonial opinion. - 10 - Butler CA2024-08-105 land?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richter v. Richter“In making a partition, the commissioner or commissioners shall view and examine the estate and, on their oaths and having due regard to the improvements, situation, and quality of the different parts, set it apart in lots that will be most advantageous and equitable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richter v. Richter
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.