Sweeney v. Sweeney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “2. The Supreme Court, in its opinion in 2005 ND 47 , mandated attorney fees pursuant to NDCC 14-09-24. 3. NDCC 14-09-04 [sic] mandates reasonable attorney fees if the Court finds there has been willful and persistent denial of visitation by the custodial parent. 4. Notwithstanding subsequent trial court findings, the trial court, in its order of March 28, 2001, found actions violative of 14-09-04 [sic] (based upon Supreme Court interpretation). 5. Reasonable attorneys fees required of this section which are to be ordered by the Court must be reasonable under all circumstances. They must relate to the issue prohibited, namely willful and persistent denial of visitation. Other issues, such as custody, travel arrangements, or a host of other fees which the non-custodian incurred, do not appear reasonable for reimbursement. The movant requests nearly all of his fees be paid without showing the relevance to the prohibited conduct. 6. I find that the sum of $5,000.00 is reasonable as it relates to this topic, and order the custodian responsible for the same.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lynch v. Sweeney

2. “Both custodial and noncustodial parents have a right to contact with their children. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2). [[Image here]] The right of noncustodial parents to visitation is not just a statutory right — it is a right of constitutional magnitude. [Berg v. Berg, 2002 ND 69, ¶¶ 30-31 , 642 N.W.2d 899 (Sandstrom, J., concurring in the result) ]. Unless restricted or forfeited by serious misconduct of the noncustodial parent, noncustodial-parent visitation rights must be enforced by court action if necessary. See id. at ¶ 32; N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Oppegard-Gessler v. Gessler

3. “Ordinarily, the word “shall” in a statute creates a mandatory duty. The word “shall” is “generally imperative or mandatory ... excluding the idea of discretion, and ... operating to impose a duty.” Where necessary to effect the intent of the legislature, however, the word “shall” will be interpreted as creating a duty that is merely directory. If the duty prescribed in the statute is essential to its main objectives, the word “shall” is to be construed as creating a mandatory duty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Norman