Nord v. Herrman’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2017
12 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 Mansell v. Mansell · Mansell v. Mansell · Gardebring v. Rizzo · Medical Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc. · State v. Dalman
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there must be an `actual controversy to be determined' before a court can properly adjudicate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“North Shore and Gardner [v. Green, 67 N.D. 268 , 271 N.W. 775 (1937),] require allocation of the new shoreline in proportion to each owner’s share of the original shoreline. The method of extending section lines and government lot survey lines approved' in North Shore adequately met the legal requirement of proportional allocation. But to simply use the North Shore method to extend a quarter section line in a manner that deprives landowners of a proportional allocation in the new shoreline is not consistent with the North Shore and Gardner requirement of proportional allocation. [[Image here]] We do not hold the trial court was required to use Hovendick’s proposed colonial method for proportional allocation in this case, even though it appears to more closely achieve the proportional allocation of the shoreline requirement than does the method used by the trial court. We only hold the method used by the trial court here, which has deprived some owners of any proportional allocation of the shoreline, was erroneous as a matter of law. We remand for further proceedings to achieve proportional allocation of the new shoreline. Because the $2,500 damage award was based on this improper proportional allocation, the award must be reversed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nord v. Herrman“is capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re ET
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.