Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2014 ND 133 - Lund v. Lund

Lund v. Lund’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Lund v. Lund · In Re Estate of Lutz · Jerry Harmon Motors, Inc. v. Heth · Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons · Midwest Federal Savings Bank v. Symington

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

  1. “A valid contract requires parties capable of contracting, consent, a lawful object, and sufficient consideration. N.D.C.C. § 9-01-02. The parties’ consent must be free, mutual, and communicated to each other. N.D.C.C. § 9-03-01. Under N.D.C.C. § 9-03-16, consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Consideration is “any benefit conferred or agreed to be conferred upon the promisor by any other person to which the promisor is not entitled lawfully, or any prejudice suffered or agreed to be suffered by such person, other than such as that person, at the time of consent, is lawfully bound to suffer as an inducement to the promisor.” N.D.C.C. § 9-06-01.”
    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.