Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1997 ND 24 - Filler v. Bragg

Filler v. Bragg’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Shull v. Walcker (2009), State v. Christensen (1997)

29 state decisions

1201997200020102020decided

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 State v. DuPaul · Perdue v. Sherman · Smith v. Smith · Throndset v. Hawkenson · Overboe v. Odegaard

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

  1. “A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The running of the time for filing a notice of appeal is terminated . . . by a timely motion filed in the trial court . . . pursuant to the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure hereafter enumerated in this sentence, and the full time for appeal fixed by this subdivision commences to run and is to be computed from service of notice of the entry of any of the following orders made upon a timely motion under such rules: (1) granting or denying a motion for judgment under Rule 50(b) [motion for new trial]; (2) granting or denying a motion under Rule 52(b) [motion to amend] . . .; (3) granting or denying a motion under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment; or (4) denying a motion for a new trial under Rule 59."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(emphasis added) By its very language, Rule 55 provides default judgment may not be obtained against a party who has appeared. If a party appears by motion following notice but prior to entry of default judgment, a trial court, if it denies the party's motion, must allow a reasonable time for the party to file a responsive pleading prior to the entry of default judgment. Compare N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(a) in part (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.