Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 ND 215 - Smith v. Hall

Smith v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
4
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2022

12 state decisions

70200520102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1738B · 42 U.S.C. § 666 (§ 466 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on State of Washington v. Thompson · 25 Kan. App. 2d 552 - Gentzel v. Williams · 130 N.C. App. 552 - State Ex Rel. Albemarle Child Support Enforcement Agency Ex Rel. George v. Bray · Roe v. Doe · Harbison v. Johnston

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

  1. “[¶ 6] In Smith , we explained: “Section 14-12.2-40, N.D.C.C.E,] outlines the procedure a non-registering party must use to contest the validity of a registered order. A non-registering party seeking to contest the validity ... of a registered order in this state shall request a hearing within twenty days after notice of registration.’ N.D.C.C. § 14-12.2-40(1). If the party fails to contest the validity of the order within the time limit, the order is confirmed by operation of law. N.D.C.C. § 14-12.2-40(2). A contesting party may ‘seek to vacate the registration, to assert any defense to an allegation of noncompliance with the registered order, or to contest the remedies being sought or the amount of any alleged arrearages.’ N.D.C.C. § 14-12.2-40(1). The contesting party has the burden of proving ‘[t]he issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party.’ Ñ.D.C.C. § 14-12.2-41(l)(a). ‘Confirmation of a registered order ... precludes further contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration.’ N.D.C.C. § 14-12.2-42.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “clear and unambiguous when applied to the facts in this case.”
    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.