Ficklin v. Ficklin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “physical harm, bodily injury, sexual activity compelled by physical force, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, sexual activity compelled by physical force, or assault, not committed in self-defense, on the complaining family or household members.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Niska v. Falconer · Wolt v. Wolt

2. “In Lovcik , we recognized that statements were sufficient to support a finding of domestic violence because of the threat of imminent physical harm. 1997 ND 201, ¶¶ 12-13 , 569 N.W.2d 697 . But the facts in Lovcik are distinguishable from [the Ficklin] case. In Lovcik , a previous protection order had been entered against the father for committing violent physical acts of aggression against the mother, including pushing her against a wall, choking her while she was holding one of the children, and pushing her to the ground. Id. at ¶ 3. After the parties had attended a court hearing on custody and child support modification, the father became angry and made several hostile telephone calls to the mother using harassing and de rogatory language. Id. at ¶ 7. The series of angry threatening calls made the mother immediately fear for her safety. Id. at ¶ 8. She “became nauseated and shook from fear,” and she immediately locked all doors and windows of the home and called the police to request protection. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 12. The court found the father’s harassing calls caused the mother to have fear of imminent physical harm and also found that her fear was reasonable because of her past experience of having been physically abused by the perpetrator. Id. at ¶ 13. We affirmed the court’s finding of domestic violence, concluding under the clearly erroneous standard of review the evidence supported the court’s finding there was a fear of imminent physical harm. The facts of [the Ficklin] ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lenton v. Lenton · Wolt v. Wolt

3. “`[n]ear at hand; mediate rather than immediate; close rather than touching; impending; on the point of happening; threatening; menacing; perilous,'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hanneman v. Nygaard