Fisher v. Hasenjager

Ohio Supreme Court

Fisher v. Hasenjager

858 N.E.2d 816, 112 Ohio St. 3d 1404

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 13, 2006

Docket2006-1853

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 858 N.E.2d 816 (Fisher v. Hasenjager) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fisher v. Hasenjager, 858 N.E.2d 816, 112 Ohio St. 3d 1404 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercer App. No. 10-05-14, 2006-Ohio-4190. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed September 27, 2006:

[1405]*1405“Is a change in the designation of residential parent and legal custodian of children a ’term’ of a court approved shared parenting decree, allowing the designation to be modified solely on a finding that the modification is in the best interest of the children pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) and without a determination that a ’change in circumstances’ has occurred pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)?”

The conflict cases are Sckoettle v. Bering (Apr. 22,1996), Brown App. No. CA95-07-011, and Fisher v. Campbell (June 23,1997), Butler App. No. CA96-11-248.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-1815, Fisher v. Hasenjager, Mercer App. No. 10-05-14, 2006-Ohio-4190.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mercer App. No. 10-05-14, 2006-Ohio-4190. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed September 27, 2006:

[1405]*1405“Is a change in the designation of residential parent and legal custodian of children a ’term’ of a court approved shared parenting decree, allowing the designation to be modified solely on a finding that the modification is in the best interest of the children pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b) and without a determination that a ’change in circumstances’ has occurred pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)?”

The conflict cases are Sckoettle v. Bering (Apr. 22,1996), Brown App. No. CA95-07-011, and Fisher v. Campbell (June 23,1997), Butler App. No. CA96-11-248.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-1815, Fisher v. Hasenjager, Mercer App. No. 10-05-14, 2006-Ohio-4190.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

858 N.E.2d 816, 112 Ohio St. 3d 1404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-hasenjager-ohio-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack