Schlieve v. Schlieve’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The district] court’s award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous or it is not sufficiently specific to show the factual basis- for the decision. See, e.g., Rustad v. Rustad, 2013 ND 185, ¶ 5 , 838 N.W.2d 421 ; Wolt v. Wolt, 2010 ND 26, ¶ 7 , 778 N.W.2d 786 . “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, although there is some evidence to support it, on the entire record, we are left with a "definite and firm conviction a mistáke has been made.” Doll v. Doll, 2011 ND 24, ¶ 6 , 794 N.W.2d 425 . “Under the clearly erroneous standard, we do not reweigh the evidence nor 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.” Wolt , at ¶ 7 (quotation-marks omitted). The district court has substantial discretion in making.a custody determination,-but it must consider all of the best-interest factors. Id. at ¶ 9. “Although a separate finding is not required for each statutory factor,, the court’s findings must contain sufficient specificity, to show the factual basis for the custody decision.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brouillet v. Brouillet