Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 274 NW2D 201 - Mattis v. Mattis

Mattis v. Mattis’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
July 1985
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Fischer v. Fischer · In Re Estate of Elmer · Waletzko v. Herdegen · DeForest v. DeForest · Rummel v. Rummel

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 11 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 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 811 , 317 (N.D.1976).’ “To this we add that ordinarily on appeals to this court the record must reflect that the appellant brought all matters necessary for the disposition of the issues raised on appeal before the trial court or that they were improperly excluded by the court; and that all issues raised on appeal were presented to the trial court but were not resolved in accordance with law. The appeal process is designed to review action taken by the trial court. It is not designed to give the appellant an opportunity to develop different strategy or theories. The appellant is bound by the record he made.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The trial court’s determination of the property division is a question of fact. It will not be set aside on appeal unless it is either clearly erroneous, pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, or it is induced by an erroneous view of the law. [Citations omitted.]””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““This court, in divorce actions, has stated a number of times that there is no requirement a property division must be equal to be equitable. [Citations omitted.]””
    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.