Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 338 N.W.2d 651 - Ebertz v. Ebertz

Ebertz v. Ebertz’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
November 2006
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2006

13 state decisions

90198319902000decided

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 Lapp v. Lapp · Miller v. Miller · Corbin v. Corbin · Voth v. Voth · Lapp v. Lapp

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

  1. ““This court distinguishes between the original award of custody and a decision to modify custody. Miller v. Miller, 305 N.W.2d 666 (N.D.1981). When initially awarding custody, the trial judge determines the single issue of the child’s best interests. Sec. 14-09-06.1, N.D.C.C. When modifying custody, the trial judge must determine two issues: whether or not there has been a significant change of circumstances since the original divorce decree and custody award and, if so, whether or not those changed circumstances are such that a change in custody fosters the best interests of the child. [Citations omitted.] ⅜ ⅝ s£ ⅜ sjc “The change of circumstances must not only be significant, but it must also indicate that modifying custody will promote the children’s best interests.” 338 N.W.2d at 654-655 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., states: `In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury... the court shall find the facts specially...' In this instance the trial judge in his oral opinion did not make detailed findings of fact. But in Gross v. Gross, 287 N.W.2d 457, 460 (N.D.1979), after emphasizing the need for specific findings of fact, this court recognized that the trial judge determines the credibility of the witnesses and that `[p]resent sense impressions of that nature are not instilled by an appellate perusal of the trial transcript.'"”
    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.