Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 337 N.W.2d 786 - Fleck v. Fleck

Fleck v. Fleck’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably Seablom v. Seablom (1984), First National Bank & Trust Co. of Williston v. Brakken (1991)

30 state decisions

11019831990200020102020decided

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 City of Wahpeton v. Drake-Henne, Inc. · Rummel v. Rummel · Hefty v. Aldrich · Lawrence v. Lawrence · Dvorak v. Dvorak

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

  1. ““The function of this court in reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside a regularly entered judgment is not to determine if the trial court was substantively correct in entering the judgment from which relief is sought, but is to determine if the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that sufficient grounds for disturbing the finality of the judgment were not established. ... An abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court is never assumed, but must be affirmatively established. * * * * * * “A mere recitation of the grounds set forth to Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., without specific details underlying such assertions, is not sufficient to afford relief.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment or order in any action or proceeding for the following reasons: (i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... or (vi) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.””
    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.