Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cherry v. Cherrygreen2 sentences2000While we recognize that "* * * [n]either party should make a profit at the expense of the other * * *," Cherry [ v. Cherry (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 348 , 355 , 20 O.O.3d 318, 322 ], we do not interpret R.C. 3105.18 to require an alimony award that provides the parties with an equal standard of living or a standard of living equivalent to that established during the marriage. 2000While we recognize that "* * * [n]either party should make a profit at the expense of the other * * *," Cherry [ v. Cherry (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 348 , 355 , 20 O.O.3d 318, 322 ], we do not interpret R.C. 3105.18 to require an alimony award that provides the parties with an equal standard of living or a standard of living equivalent to that established during the marriage. | 1 | 6 |
Kunkle v. Kunklered2 sentences2007No. 825, 2000 WL 818909 ; see, also, Kunkle , 51 Ohio St.3d at 70 and Cherry v. Cherry (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 348 , 355 . 1999Id. at 70 . | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kaechele v. Kaechele
red
2 sentences2011Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 93, 95 , 518 N.E.2d 1197 . 2007The Ohio Supreme Court has held that R.C. 3105.18 does not require a spousal support award "that provides the parties with an equal standard of living or a standard of living equivalent to that established during the marriage." Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 93 , 95 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Heslep v. Heslep (2000), 7th Dist. | 4 | 1988–2011 |
Addy v. Addy
green
2 sentences2000Addy v. Addy (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 204 , 208 . 2000Id. at 111. "[A]lthough R.C. 3105.18 does not specifically require a spousal support award to provide the parties with an equal standard of living, equity requires that a disadvantaged spouse receive sufficient spousal support to bring him or her up to a reasonable standard of living, in light of the standard maintained during the marriage." Glass v. Glass (June 30, 2000), Trumbull App. No. 99-T-0045, unreported, at 8, citing Addy v. Addy (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 204 , 208 . | 3 | 2000–2000 |
Saks v. Riga
green
1 sentence2015Cuyahoga No. 101091, 2014-Ohio-4930, ¶ 77 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.