Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

99 Ohio App. 3d 701

651 N.E.2d 1031

Houts v. Houts

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 5, 1995

This page is marked noindex.

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1995-01-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“for purposes of calculating child support as”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Dannaher v. Newbold, 05ap-172 (6-14-2007), Jajola v. Jajola, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2004)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably 154 Ohio App. 3d 101 - Berthelot v. Berthelot (2003), 150 Ohio App. 3d 298 - Foster v. Foster (2002)

29 state decisions

1301995200020102020decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Thomas F. Bryant, Judge,

¶1 separately concurring.

¶2 For purposes of calculating child support, the pertinent sections of R.C. 3113.215 should be interpreted to require the determination of personal income derived from the profits of a proprietorship by application of sound accounting principles to relevant, admissible evidence, thus revealing actual profit, not taxable profit determined by the rules for taxation of income. I believe it advisable to sustain all of the first four assignments of error on the basis of that interpretation only and would reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings in accord with that rule. I believe the fifth assignment of error is moot. Therefore, I concur in the judgment only insofar as it requires reversal and remand for determination of child support in accordance with the applicable statute.

/99/ohioapp3d/701 · .json · Public domain