Fischer v. Fischer’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
216 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 221 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Nastrom v. Nastrom (1979), Kautzman v. Kautzman (1998)
216 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Ruff v. Ruff · Kressly v. Kressly · Bryant v. Bryant · Holmes v. Holmes · Agrest v. Agrest
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 221 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the respective ages of the parties, their earning ability, the duration of the marriage and conduct of the parties during the marriage, their station in life, the circumstances and necessities of each, their health and physical condition, their financial circumstances as shown by the property owned at the time, its value at the time, its income-producing capacity, if any, whether accumulated before or after the marriage, and such other matters as may be material.”
66 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Berg v. Berg · Laude v. Laude“‘14-05-24. Permanent alimony — Division of property. — When a divorce is granted, the court shall make such equitable distribution of the real and personal property of the parties as may seem just and proper, and may compel either of the parties to provide for the maintenance of the children of the marriage, and to make such suitable allowances to the other party for support during life or for a shorter period as to the court may seem just, having regard to the circumstances of the parties respectively. The court from time to time may modify its orders in these respects.’ “In light of this section this court has sanc-”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * The distribution to be made depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. * * * There is no rigid rule for the division of property but the ultimate object to be sought is an equitable distribution. * * * Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775 , 52 N.W.2d 107, at 111 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Novlesky v. Novlesky · Doll v. Doll
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.