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.
8 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1963–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kotch v. Kotchgreen2 sentences2012“The gift exception in division (A)(6)(a)(vii) requires proof that not only did the donor intend to benefit one of the spouses, but that the donor also intended to exclude the other spouse from acquiring any interest in the property through the gift that was made.” Kotch v. Kotch, 178 Ohio App.3d 358 , 2008- Ohio-5084, 897 N.E.2d 1191 (5th Dist.), ¶30, citing Marshall v. Marshall, 2nd Dist. 2012“The gift exception in division (A)(6)(a)(vii) requires proof that not only did the donor intend to benefit one of the spouses, but that the donor also intended to exclude the other spouse from acquiring any interest in the property through the gift that was made.” Kotch v. Kotch, 178 Ohio App.3d 358 , 2008- Ohio-5084, 897 N.E.2d 1191 (5th Dist.), ¶30, citing Marshall v. Marshall, 2nd Dist. | 1 | 2 |
Kuehn v. Kuehngreen2 sentences1997See Kuehn v. Kuehn (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 245 , 564 N.E.2d 97 , 1 and Anderson v. Anderson (July 7, 1992), Hocking App. No. 91CA1, unreported, 1992 WL 174716 . 1997See Kuehn v. Kuehn (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 245 , 564 N.E.2d 97 , 1 and Anderson v. Anderson (July 7, 1992), Hocking App. No. 91CA1, unreported, 1992 WL 174716 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Butler v. Butler
green
2 sentences2017Id. {¶74} The trial court made the following finding concerning the Damascus property: 11. 2014Holmes No. 12CA009, 2012-Ohio-6085, ¶ 24 , quoting Kotch v. Kotch, 178 Ohio App.3d 358 , 2008-Ohio-5084, ¶ 30 (5th Dist.), citing Marshall v. Marshall, 2d Dist. | 2 | 2014–2017 |
Kostyo v. Kaminski
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2014Seneca No. 13-12-17, 2012-Ohio-6116, ¶ 16 , quoting Barkley at 161, fn. 2, citing -6- Case No. 2-14-06 Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21 (1936). “‘The gift exception in division (A)(6)(a)(vii) requires proof that not only did the donor intend to benefit one of the spouses, but that the donor also intended to exclude the other spouse from acquiring any interest in the property through the gift that was made.’” Butler v. Butler, 5th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Williams v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence2014Seneca No. 13-12-17, 2012-Ohio-6116, ¶ 16 , quoting Barkley at 161, fn. 2, citing -6- Case No. 2-14-06 Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21 (1936). “‘The gift exception in division (A)(6)(a)(vii) requires proof that not only did the donor intend to benefit one of the spouses, but that the donor also intended to exclude the other spouse from acquiring any interest in the property through the gift that was made.’” Butler v. Butler, 5th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Grable v. Henderson
neutral
2 sentences2008They “simply testified to that which disproved plaintiffs claim.” Grable v. Henderson (1934), 49 Ohio App. 145, 148 , 195 N.E. 485 . 2008They “simply testified to that which disproved plaintiffs claim.” Grable v. Henderson (1934), 49 Ohio App. 145, 148 , 195 N.E. 485 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Neidler v. Donaldson
green
1 sentence1974Seneca 1966), 9 Ohio Misc. 208 , 224 N. E. 2d 404 , 38 O. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Deeds v. Deeds
neutral
1 sentence1963If a gift in violation of the type of statute in question is not in the residuary clause, it passes under a general residuary clause if there is one. 1 Bowe-Parker: Page on Wills, Sec. 3.16, p. 110 (1960); Davis v. Davis, 62 Ohio St., 411 , 57 N. E., 317 (1900) (recognizing rule, but making exception to it by reason of particular wording of will); Deeds v. Deeds, 58 Ohio Law Abs., 129 , 42 Ohio Opinions, 384, 94 N. E. (2d), 232 (Prob. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.