17 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Martingreen2 sentences2020Therefore, “[t]he trial court has the obligation to test any proposal of the parents to see if it meets the Child Support Guidelines under the Marker standard even if the parties agree between themselves to a different amount or agree that one party should assume all support.” Id. 2005See Martin v. Martin (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 110 , 609 N.E.2d 537 . {¶ 13} "The law favors settlements. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Bodykegreen2 sentences2022State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio- 4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio- 2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Carducci v. Ryan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. 2022State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio- 4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio- 2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Carducci v. Ryan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
DePalmo v. DePalmogreen2 sentences2022The ten percent difference applies to the change in the amount of child support, not to the change in circumstances of the parents.” Id. at 540 (and the court has the obligation to test any proposal of the parents to see if it meets the standards). 2000Even when a court establishes child support at a level agreed to by the parties, the court "has the obligation to test any proposal of the parents to see if it meets the Child Support Guidelines, under the Marker standard * * *." DePalmo v. DePalmo (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 535 , 540 . | 1 | 4 |
Louis A. Carducci v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary, U.S. Treasury Departmentgreen1 sentence2022State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio- 4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio- 2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Carducci v. Ryan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Templin v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.green1 sentence2002See, also, Templin at 576; State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1 |
Gabor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.green1 sentence2001Gabor at 144; Holcomb , 9 Ohio App.3d at 81 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio- 4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio- 2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Carducci v. Ryan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. 2022State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio- 4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2010-Ohio- 2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 78 (O’Donnell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Carducci v. Ryan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Holcomb
green
2 sentences2001Gabor at 144; Holcomb , 9 Ohio App.3d at 81 . 1990Holcomb, supra. See, also, Costa v. Cox, supra. Therefore, before lack of cooperation may warrant cancellation of a policy or relieve an insurer of an obligation on a claim, the insured's failure must prejudice material rights of the insurer. | 2 | 1990–2001 |
Grava v. Parkman Township
green
2 sentences2010“The trial court * * * has the obligation to test any proposal of the parents to see if it meets the Child Support Guidelines * * * even if the parties agree between themselves to a different amount or agree that only one party shall assume all support.” DePalmo at 540 . {¶ 9} “Res judicata is a rule of fundamental and substantial justice * ■* * that ‘is to be applied in particular situations as fairness and justice require, and that * * * is not to be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice or so as to work an injustice.’ ” State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , 2010“The trial court * * * has the obligation to test any proposal of the parents to see if it meets the Child Support Guidelines * * * even if the parties agree between themselves to a different amount or agree that only one party shall assume all support.” DePalmo at 540 . {¶ 9} “Res judicata is a rule of fundamental and substantial justice * ■* * that ‘is to be applied in particular situations as fairness and justice require, and that * * * is not to be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice or so as to work an injustice.’ ” State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Simpkins
green
1 sentence2010“The trial court * * * has the obligation to test any proposal of the parents to see if it meets the Child Support Guidelines * * * even if the parties agree between themselves to a different amount or agree that only one party shall assume all support.” DePalmo at 540 . {¶ 9} “Res judicata is a rule of fundamental and substantial justice * ■* * that ‘is to be applied in particular situations as fairness and justice require, and that * * * is not to be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice or so as to work an injustice.’ ” State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Weller v. Farris
green
1 sentence1999Weller v. Farris (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 270 , 274 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Zimmerman v. St. Peter's Catholic Church
green
2 sentences1995Id. at 762 , 622 N.E.2d at 1190 . *226 The Bank Protection Act of 1968, Section 1881 et seq., Title 12, U.S.Code, authorized a “federal supervisory agency,” in this case the Comptroller of the Currency, to promulgate rules “establishing minimum standards with which each bank or savings and loan association must comply with respect to the installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures, reasonable in cost, to discourage robberies, burglaries, and larcenies and to assist in the identification and apprehension of persons who commit such acts.” Section 1882(a), Title 12 1995Id. at 762 , 622 N.E.2d at 1190 . *226 The Bank Protection Act of 1968, Section 1881 et seq., Title 12, U.S.Code, authorized a “federal supervisory agency,” in this case the Comptroller of the Currency, to promulgate rules “establishing minimum standards with which each bank or savings and loan association must comply with respect to the installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures, reasonable in cost, to discourage robberies, burglaries, and larcenies and to assist in the identification and apprehension of persons who commit such acts.” Section 1882(a), Title 12 | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.