SCHIRADO v. Foote’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well settled under North Dakota law that challenges to a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo when the jurisdictional facts are not in dispute. Harshberger v, Harsh-berger, 2006 ND 245, ¶ 16 , 724 N.W.2d 148 . When jurisdictional facts are disputed, the district court’s decision on subject matter jurisdiction necessarily involves findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, when disputed facts surround a challenge to the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, we are presented with a mixed question of law and fact. See Escobar v. Reisinger, 133 N.M. 487 , 64 P.3d 514, 516 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding jurisdictional challenges under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act (“UCCJA”) is mixed question of law and fact). Under this standard, we review the “questions of law subject to the de novo standard of review and the findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of re view.” Wigginton v. Wigginton, 2005 ND 31, ¶ 13 , 692 N.W.2d 108 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Klein v. Winegar · Kelly v. Kelly

2. “1.Except as otherwise provided in section 14-14.1-15 [Temporary emergency jurisdiction], a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: a. This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding, and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; b. A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision a, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under section 14-14.1-18 [Inconvenient forum] or 14-14.1-19 [Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct], and: (1) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (2) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships; c. All courts having jurisdiction under subdivision a or b have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under section 14-14.1-18 or 14-14.1-19; or d. No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in subdivision a, b, or ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Kelly v. Kelly