Notes of Decisions
Cited in
117
cases (
34 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
Hockstok v. Hockstok, 2002 Ohio 7208 (Ohio 2002).
Hockstok v. Hockstok, 2002 Ohio 7208 (Ohio 2002).
· cites it 2× “{¶14} R.C. 3105.011 gives Ohio common pleas domestic relations courts jurisdiction “appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters,” and R.”
State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 2024 Ohio 135 (Ohio 2024).
· cites it 10× “11 therefore fall within the terms of R.C. 3105.011. The Geauga County Court of Common Pleas does not have a separate domestic-relations division, but R.”
Lisboa v. Karner, 855 N.E.2d 136 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 5× “” This section limits the jurisdiction of the domestic relations division to the determination of domestic relations matters.”
Bolinger v. Bolinger, 551 N.E.2d 157 (Ohio 1990).
· cites it 3× “R.C. 3105.011 provides as follows: “The court of common pleas including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters.”
Haag v. Cuyahoga Cnty., 619 F. Supp. 262 (N.D. Ohio 1985).
· cites it 4× “Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.011 . The court may also award custody of minor children ( Ohio Rev.”
Akroyd v. Akroyd, 2024 Ohio 4631 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 15× “The defendant directs this Court to no other authority purporting to limit or prevent the use of equitable powers, pursuant to R.C. § 3105.011, in this fashion. Defendant’s arguments are without merit because of the Magistrate’s inherent equitable powers and the unique…”
Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 2019 Ohio 2035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “The section appears to reiterate the general grant of “full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters” conferred on the courts of common pleas by R.C. 3105.011. The effect of that grant has been held “to permit the court…”
Ostanek v. Ostanek (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 2319 (Ohio 2021).
“In addition, R.C. 3105.011(A) provides that “[t]he court of common pleas including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters.”
Mullinix v. Mullinix, 2023 Ohio 1053 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “After noting its statutory jurisdiction over divorce actions generally, pursuant to R.C. 3105.011, the court stated, “According to the record, affidavits filed, admission from 1She likewise contended that venue was improper in Franklin County under Civ.”
Pyle v. Pyle, 463 N.E.2d 98 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).
“See R.C. 3105.011. The complaint was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the general division of the trial court and the court properly overruled defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
Masitto v. Masitto, 488 N.E.2d 857 (Ohio 1986).
“301 ], paragraph one of the syllabus, the common pleas court, division of domestic relations, is given general jurisdiction of all domestic matters by R.C. 3105.011. Since appellee’s motion before the domestic court was for change of custody, such court had general subject…”
Salameh v. Doumet, 2019 Ohio 5391 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “{¶37} R.C. 3105.011 provides: The court of common pleas including the divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.011(2) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.011(A) — 25 cases
Ostanek v. Ostanek (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 2319 (Ohio 2021).
“In addition, R.C. 3105.011(A) provides that “[t]he court of common pleas including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters.”
Mullinix v. Mullinix, 2023 Ohio 1053 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
“After noting its statutory jurisdiction over divorce actions generally, pursuant to R.C. 3105.011, the court stated, “According to the record, affidavits filed, admission from 1She likewise contended that venue was improper in Franklin County under Civ.”
State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 2024 Ohio 135 (Ohio 2024).
“11 therefore fall within the terms of R.C. 3105.011. The Geauga County Court of Common Pleas does not have a separate domestic-relations division, but R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.011(B) — 4 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.011(B)(1) — 4 cases
Akroyd v. Akroyd, 2024 Ohio 4631 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
“The defendant directs this Court to no other authority purporting to limit or prevent the use of equitable powers, pursuant to R.C. § 3105.011, in this fashion. Defendant’s arguments are without merit because of the Magistrate’s inherent equitable powers and the unique…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.011(B)(2) — 4 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.