Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 NW2D 230 - Rummel v. Rummel

Rummel v. Rummel’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Lapp v. Lapp (1980), First National Bank of Crosby v. Bjorgen (1986)

36 state decisions

15019781980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Schneiderman v. United States · Kelley v. Everglades Drainage District · In Re Estate of Elmer · Waletzko v. Herdegen · State v. Motsko

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

  1. ““. . . in the absence of unusual circumstances, new counsel on appeal is limited to the same issues that prior counsel would have been able to raise. Merely becoming a successor to prior counsel does not give him the right to raise issues on appeal which prior counsel could not have raised. The issues and the positions of the respective parties remain the same. “ ‘It is not our function to seek out error, which the trial court was not given an opportunity to rectify, or to remake the record for review, or to allow second guesses on trial strategy.’ Waletzko v. Herdegen, 226 N.W.2d 648, 653 (N.D.1975); Welken v. Conley, 252 N.W.2d 311, 317 (N.D.1976). Neither, on appeal, should we allow the introduction of new issues not presented to the trial court.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In determining a divorce action on irreconcilable differences the court need only find that irreconcilable differences exist and is not required to go into the conduct or, as it is sometimes referred to, the fault of the parties.” Rummel v. Rummel, supra at 234.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““If an opinion or memorandum of decision is filed, it'will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law appear therein.””
    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.