Notes of Decisions
Cuyahoga Support Enf't Agency v. Guthrie, 705 N.E.2d 318 (Ohio 1999).
· cites it 10× “60(B)(2) nor (4) is applicable under the circumstances of this case, the question then becomes what authority, if any, did the juvenile court have in vacating the prior determination of parentage and in ordering interim child support.”
In re S.K.L., 2016 Ohio 2826 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “The juvenilecourt held that pursuant to R.C. 3111.16 and 3111.381(E), the domestic relations court “has jurisdiction and continues to hold jurisdiction over the subject matter herein.”
Standifer v. Arwood, 479 N.E.2d 304 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 10× “10, which provide for the admission into evidence of genetic test results ordered by the court sua sponte or upon a party’s motion without regard to the results’ sole relevance to the defense of a paternity action, impermissibly impaired a vested right of appellant under former…”
Owens v. Bell, 451 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1983).
· cites it 4× “47 and former R.C. 3111.16 would, in matters originating prior to current law, have precluded the admission of HLA test evidence which did not exclude the putative father.”
Braatz v. Braatz, 706 N.E.2d 1218 (Ohio 1999).
“R.C. 3111.16 gives the court specific statutory continuing jurisdiction to modify or revoke orders under the parentage statutes.”
Singer v. Dickinson, 588 N.E.2d 806 (Ohio 1992).
“Under R.C. 3111.16, the juvenile court has continuing jurisdiction to modify or revoke judgments issued under R.”
In re T.D., 2018 Ohio 204 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “16 because the domestic relations court that decided her divorce action had already entered a custody determination regarding T.D. That section provides: Except as otherwise provided in section 3127.”
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 2017 Ohio 7886 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
“79(A); R.C. 3111.16; Civ.R. 75. Thus, if Danielle’s spousal support expires and she fails to obtain adequate employment, she may seek a modification of child support.”
Smith v. Smith, 109 Ohio St. 3d 285 (Ohio 2006).
“Further, under R.C. 3111.16, a “court has continuing jurisdiction to modify or revoke a judgment or order issued under sections 3111.”
Pegan v. Crawmer, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 1996).
“R.C. 3111.16 and 2301.03(S). Pegan had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise her contentions concerning any alleged failure to comply with R.”
Park v. Ambrose, 619 N.E.2d 469 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).
“13 permits a trial court to make a support order and R.C. 3111.16 permits the court to enforce that order.”
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.