Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
Van Dusen v. Van Dusen, 784 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
Van Dusen v. Van Dusen, 784 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Brian then filed a motion asking that he be declared not to be Kelly’s father under the terms of R.C. 3119.96 et seq. {¶ 5} Hearings were held before a magistrate and before a judge.”
Dragon v. Dragon, 2016 Ohio 7304 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “The trial court applied the doctrine of res judicata to preclude Dragon’s motion for relief from the paternity determination and the support order, holding that Dragon could have appealed the 1982 support order and also the 2007 order reducing the arrearage to judgment.”
McKinzie v. Fry, 2022 Ohio 2292 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “claimed that she could seek relief from the final acknowledgment of paternity in a court action under R.C. 3119.96 through 3119.967, and specifically R.”
C.L.A. v. D.P.M., 2024 Ohio 836 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
“Jurisdiction is predicated on a party filing a motion for a court hearing no later than 14 days after the party received an OCSS Recommendation. Once a request for a court hearing is filed, the court is required to conduct a hearing in compliance with R.”
Newman v. Weinman, 2012 Ohio 3464 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “{¶22} Additionally, Newman argues, R.C. 3119.96 governs the instant action. On March 22, 2001, Senate Bill 180 went into effect, codified under R.”
In re H.M., 2011 Ohio 3697 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
“82820, 2004-Ohio-2343, ¶8 (“R.C. 3119.96 et seq. provides a right to seek relief from a judgment of paternity without a specific time limit.”
Dorsey v. Henry, 2022 Ohio 2023 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Van Hoose’s argument that Section 3119.96 et seq. permitted actions to recover past child support payments.”
In re Z.S., 2011 Ohio 3269 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
““R.C. 3119.96 et seq. provides a right to seek relief from a judgment of paternity without a specific time limit.”
In re B.M., 2026 Ohio 264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “’s motion had not complied with the requirements of R.C. 3119.96, et seq. The court granted J.”
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.