Lipp v. Lipp’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2012
18 state decisions
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 Williams v. Williams · Seablom v. Seablom · Bingert v. Bingert · Urlaub v. Urlaub · Jondahl v. Jondahl
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The North Dakota Century Code does not define the term ‘alimony.’ The term is used in connection with child support in §§ 11-16-01, 14-03-17, 14-08-07, and 14-12.1-24; with maintenance of either spouse in § 14-05-25, and with demands for change of judge in § 29-15-21. The term appears in conjunction with security requirements for support or maintenance in § 14-05-25, decrees of separation in § 14-06-05, and assignments under the Uniform Crime Victims Reparation Act in § 65-13-15. Finally, in § 14-05-24 the term appears as ‘Permanent alimony’ but only in the headnote.” [Footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Redlin v. Redlin
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.