Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2006 ND 65 - Rothberg v. Rothberg

Rothberg v. Rothberg’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Cass County State's Attorney v. R.A.S. (2008), Dieterle v. Dieterle (2013)

40 state decisions

290200620102020decided

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 Bertsch v. Bertsch · Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Lillehaugen · Austin v. Towne · Minar v. Minar · VND, LLC v. Leevers Foods, Inc.

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

  1. “Conclusory, general findings do not comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and a finding of fact that merely states a party has failed in [or has sustained] its burden of proof is inadequate under the rule.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “To modify spousal support, circumstances must have changed materially. Slight, or even moderate, changes in the parties’ relative incomes are not necessarily material. “Material change” means something which substantially affects the financial abilities or needs of a party. The reason for changes in income must be examined, as well as the extent that the changes were contemplated at the time of the agreed decree.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-23, a district court has discretion to award attorney fees in divorce proceedings, including proceedings on motions to modify spousal support. An award of attorney fees under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-23 lies within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be set aside on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. A district court abuses its discretion if it misinterprets or misapplies the law. In deciding whether to award attorney fees under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-23, the court must balance the parties’ financial needs and ability to pay.”
    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.