Hanisch v. Osvold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Court is convinced from the testimony of therapist Liz Larson, from Denise, and the other witnesses that the mental health issues which originally caused the temporary placement of the child with the father, Ryan, are no longer an issue. Therefore, the Court will review the facts based upon the best interests of the child. a. The Defendant, Denise, clearly articulated her love, affection, and emotional ties with the child and the child’s apparent reactions to her and the child’s sibling who lives with them in the home. Although it is clear that the Plaintiff likewise has great affection and love for the child, it is the Court’s opinion that this factor slightly favors Denise. b. The capacity and disposition of Denise to give love, affection also slightly favors Denise. c. The parents both are disposed to feed, clothe, and care for the medical needs of the child. The mother appears slightly more inclined to believe these activities are her calling rather than an obligation. She seems more inclined to notice the welling-being [sic] of the child. d. The Plaintiff has provided a stable home since December 2006. The Defendant provided the home prior to that. I don’t find an advantage for either parent relating to this factor. e. Each parent offers a permanent family unit for the child. The mother offers the more traditional family unit, however. f. Moral fitness is not an issue in this case. g. Mental or physical health is not a current issue. If the mother has custody, she mu”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sorenson v. Slater

2. “Hanisch argues the district court erred in awarding custody of the child to Osvold. “A district court’s award of custody is treated as a finding of fact and, on appeal, will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a).” Wessman v. Wessman, 2008 ND 62, ¶ 12 , 747 N.W.2d 85 . “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 the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” Burns v. Burns, 2007 ND 134, ¶9 , 737 N.W.2d 243 (quoting Gietzen v. Gabel, 2006 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 718 N.W.2d 552 ). “Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, we do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses, and we will not retry a custody case or substitute our judgment for a district court’s initial custody decision merely because we might have reached a different result.” Jelsing v. Peterson, 2007 ND 41, ¶ 11 , 729 N.W.2d 157 . This is particularly relevant “for a difficult child custody decision involving two fit parents.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sorenson v. Slater

3. “[t]he interaction and interrelationship, or the potential for interaction and interrelationship, of the child[ren] with any person who resides in, is present, or frequents the household of a parent and who may significantly affect the child[ren]'s best interests.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lindberg v. Lindberg