Aabye v. Aabye’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The purpose of nunc pro tunc proceedings is to make the record speak the truth and to allow a court to correct its records until they contain a true history of the court’s transactions. Enderlin Farmers’ Store Co. v. Witliff, 56 N.D. 380 , 217 N.W. 537 (1928).... “The test of whether or not an amendment nunc pro tunc is permissible has been stated as follows: “ ‘The test is whether on the one hand the change will make the record speak the truth as to what was actually determined or done by the court, or whether, on the other hand, it will alter such action or intended action.’ State v. District Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 110 Mont. 36 , 98 P.2d 883, 885 (1940). “As stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, ‘The office of such a nunc pro tunc entry is correctly to record, not to supply judicial action.’ [Emphasis in original.] Wilcox v. Schloner, 222 Minn. 45 , 23 N.W.2d 19, 22 (1946); and by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, ‘A court cannot modify or amend its judgment to make it conform to what the court ought to have or intended to adjudge.’ In re Gibson’s Estate, 7 Wis.2d 506 , 96 N.W.2d 859, 864 (1959). “In order to justify and assure that in correcting or amending a judgment the court is not altering what was intended to be done, there must be support therefor from the pleadings, or from the record of the decree, or from the clerk’s minutes, or from the minutes or notations kept by the judge, or from the transcript, or from some proper paper or file in the case. Wiggins v. P”

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

2. “[T]he law is that the court cannot amend its judgment to conform to what it now believes it should have done. If further proceedings are necessary in order to provide for support of the children, a motion to modify would be appropriate as, in divorce proceedings, the trial court has continuing jurisdiction with reference to the care of minor children.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolff v. Weber

3. “The circuit court has power even after the term to correct its judgment or to add omitted portions thereto to conform the judgment to that actually pronounced. A court cannot modify or amend its judgment to make it conform to what the court ought to have or intended to adjudge. [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 126 Wis. 2d 485 - Marriage of Strawser v. Strawser