Hanneman v. Nygaard’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kern v. Hettinger · Opheim v. County of Norman · Motors Ltd v. Subaru of America Inc Motors Ltd a · Riverwood Commercial Park, L.L.C. v. Standard Oil Co. · Ungar v. North Dakota State University
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a), a district court trying an action upon the facts without a jury ‘shall find the facts specially.’ A district court must make find- ■ ings of fact that are sufficient to enable an appellate court to understand the factual determinations made by the district court and the basis for its conclusions of law. Rothberg v. Rothberg, 2006 ND 65, ¶ 14 , 711 N.W.2d 219 . A district court’s ‘findings of fact ... should be stated with sufficient specificity to assist the appellate court’s review and to afford a clear understanding’ of the district court’s decision. Id.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Combs v. Lund
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.