Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 ND 107 - Riehl v. Riehl

Riehl v. Riehl’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Krueger v. Krueger (2008), Weigel v. Weigel (2000)

30 state decisions

240199920002010decided

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 Fischer v. Fischer · Ruff v. Ruff · Heley v. Heley · Kautzman v. Kautzman · Weir v. Weir

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. “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.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Spousal support is aimed at balancing the burdens and disadvantages created by the divorce. We recognize permanent and rehabilitative spousal support as two distinct remedies. Permanent support is appropriate when the economically disadvantaged spouse cannot be equitably rehabilitated to make up for the opportunities and development she lost during the course of the marriage. Rehabilitative spousal support, on the other hand, is appropriate when it is possible to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent economic status, or to equalize the burden of divorce by increasing the disadvantaged spouse’s earning capacity. There are two approaches to awarding rehabilitative spousal support. One is the ‘minimalist doctrine’ which has as its objective rehabilitating the recipient for minimal self-sufficiency. We have rejected this doctrine in favor of the more ‘equitable’ approach to determining rehabilitative spousal support, which attempts to provide education, training, or experience that will enable the recipient to achieve ‘adequate’ or ‘appropriate’ self-support while improving her employment skills.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “`foregone opportunities or lost advantages as a consequence of the marriage and who has contributed during the marriage to the supporting spouse's increased earning capacity.'”
    2 later decisions 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.