Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 ND 74 - Christl v. Swanson

Christl v. Swanson’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2020

14 state decisions

90200020102020decided

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 Buchholz v. Buchholz · Narum v. Faxx Foods, Inc. · State v. Evans · Schleicher v. Schleicher · Hier v. Hieb

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.

  1. “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review. A court errs as a matter of law when it fails to comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines in determining an obligor's child support obligation. As a matter of law, the district court must clearly set forth how it arrived at the amount of income and level of support. The trial court's findings of fact in making its child support determination are overturned on appeal only if they are clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if, on the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “They [the Supreme Court justices] seem to just be addressing the Judge’s mistaken interpretation of the law on the presumption with regal'd to the asset transactions. And then they’re saying, you know, that could affect the discre tion of how you would have utilized your discretion on the — to determine the deduction of business costs for the purchase of the business assets. That’s— that’s all they seem to be saying. So it seems to me that all that I have is to view the law correctly under the presumed asset transactions, to look at that evidence, and to then utilize discretion with regard to the deduction of business costs paid for the purchase of business assets.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “After adjusted gross income from self-employment is determined, all business expenses allowed for taxation purposes, but which do not require actual expenditures, such as depreciation, must be added to determine net income from self-employment. Business costs actually incurred and paid, but not expensed for internal revenue service purposes, such as principal payments on business loans (to the extent there is a net reduction in total principal obligations incurred in purchasing depreciable assets), may be deducted to determine net income from self-employment.”
    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.