Curtiss v. Curtiss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Modification of parenting time proceedings are governed by a standard established through case law.” Bredeson [v. Mackey], 2014 ND 25, ¶ 6 , 842 N.W.2d 860 (citing Dufner v. Trottier, 2010 ND 31, ¶ 13 , 778 N.W.2d 586 ). “ ‘To modify parenting time, the moving party must demonstrate a material change in circumstances has occurred since entry of the previous parenting time order and that the modification is in the best interests of the child.’” Prchal [v. Prchal], [ 2011 ND 62 ,] ¶ 11, [ 795 N.W.2d 693 ] (quoting Dufner, at ¶ 6; see also Simburger [v. Simburger], [ 2005 ND 139 ,] ¶ 13[,] [ 701 N.W.2d 880 ]). A material change in circumstances is important new facts that have occurred since the entry of the previous parenting time order. Prchal, at ¶¶ 11-12. In Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, we recognized that parenting time between a parent without primary residential responsibility is presumed to be in the child’s best interests, and “a court should only withhold visitation when it is likely to endanger the child’s physical or emotional health.” 2000 ND 1 , ¶ 21, 603 N.W.2d 896 (quotation marks omitted); see also Paulson v. Paulson, 2005 ND 72, ¶¶ 19-22 , 694 N.W.2d 681 (concluding the district court impermissibly delegated authority to decide visitation to a third party when no finding was made that unrestricted visitation is likely to endanger the child’s physical or emotional health). We have further recognized that denying a parent without primary residential responsibility”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Curtiss v. Curtiss

2. “[A] district court must adequately explain the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision, allowing the parties and this Court to understand the decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rath v. Rath