Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2016 ND 195 - Raap v. Lenton

Raap v. Lenton’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jelsing v. Peterson · Verhey v. McKenzie · Entzie v. Entzie · Torgerson v. Torgerson · Halberg v. Halberg

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. “Child support determinations involve questions of law-Which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review. A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines. As a matter of law, the district court must clearly set forth how it arrived at the amount of income and level of support.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[e]ach child support order must include a statement of the net income of the obligor used to determine the child support obligation, and how that net income was determined.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Income must be sufficiently documented through the use of tax returns, current wage statements, and other information to fully apprise the court of all gross income.”
    3 later decisions 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.