In Re Williams

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• addressing the “one parcel” issue in the context of a non-contiguous parcel of land
• 30- acre non-contiguous parcel was “not entitled to be exempted under §2329.66(A)(1)(b).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Minton
  S.D. Ohio· 2006-08-29· cited 12×
• In Re Malsch
  N.D. Ohio· 2008-12-16· cited 8×
• In Re Whitney
  N.D. Ohio· 2011-10-25· cited 5×

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1983-06-08· cited 1,643×
• Long and Wife v. Bullard
  Supreme Court· 1886-04-12· cited 272×
• Chittenden Trust Co. v. Sebert Lumber Co. (In Re Vermont Toy Works, Inc.)
  D. Vermont· 1991-12-17· cited 27×
• In Re Albion Disposal, Inc.
  W.D. New York· 1997-08-11· cited 23×
• In Re Wycuff
  N.D. Ohio· 2005-08-23· cited 21×
• In Re Carlton
  S.D. Florida· 2004-03-03· cited 14×
• Kane v. Inhabitants of Harpswell (In Re Kane)
  First Circuit· 2000-05-10· cited 11×
• In Re Bunnell
  N.D. Ohio· 2005-01-25· cited 8×
• In Re Magnesium Corp. of America
  S.D. New York· 2002-05-24· cited 7×
• Jacobs v. Honda Federal Credit Union (In Re Jacobs)
  N.D. Ohio· 2004-12-02· cited 5×
• In Re Gregory
  N.D. Ohio· 1999-01-29· cited 2×
• In Re Cordy
  N.D. Ohio· 2000-09-15· cited 2×