Rozan v. Rosen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 state decisions

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Apparently counsel, not only in this case but in others, are seriously misinterpreting Rule 46, M.R.Civ.P. Rule 46 merely states that ‘formal’ exceptions are not necessary, but it goes on to note that if the party ‘makes known’ the action he desires, etc., it is sufficient. Note that this language is in connection with the trial. F.C.M.1947, § 93-5305, was not repealed. That section provides that in cases tried by the court the judgment shall not be reversed on appeal for defects in the findings unless exceptions are made in the district court. Perhaps the confusion is in the word ‘exceptions’ as used in Rule 46 and in section 93-5305. But whatever the reason for the confusion, we emphasize here that section 93-5305 is still the law. The effect is that counsel must point out his exceptions to the findings so that the trial court may have an opportunity to correct them. The failure to do so results in the findings becoming final and the judgment will not be reversed. Now then, section 93-5502 was repealed by the adoption of the Civil Rules, but its import did not go to section 93-5305 as noted above. This effect is noted in the annotation to section 93-5502 and in the Table C, Statutes superseded, of M.R.Civ.P.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Estate of Dolezilek