Kopich v. Kopich
695 N.E.2d 265, 82 Ohio St. 3d 1442, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1739
This text of 695 N.E.2d 265 (Kopich v. Kopich) 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
Kopich v. Kopich, 695 N.E.2d 265, 82 Ohio St. 3d 1442, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1739 (Ohio 1998).
Opinion
Hamilton App. No. C-970175. 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’ entry, filed April 17, 1998:
“[I]t is the Order of this Court that this appeal is certified to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the following issue upon which the two decisions conflict:
“ ‘Whether the language “ALL UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT" appearing as the last paragraph of a divorce decree is sufficient, of itself, to satisfy the requirement of Ressler v. Ressler (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 17 [17 OBR 14], 476 N.E.2d 1032, that a decreeing court must expressly reserve jurisdiction in order to later modify a spousal support award of fixed duration.’ ”
The conflict case is Moore v. Moore (Dec. 27, 1988), Warren App. No. CA88-06-051, unreported. Sim sponte, cause consolidated with 98-749, infra.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Ressler v. Ressler
476 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1985)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
695 N.E.2d 265, 82 Ohio St. 3d 1442, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopich-v-kopich-ohio-1998.