Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 356 NW2D 566 - Lunde v. Ruigh

Lunde v. Ruigh’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
November 2004
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on McNabb v. Osmundson · Hulse v. Wifvat · Parrish v. Denato · Skinner v. Ruigh · Walters v. Herrick

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

  1. “[TJhere are two types of challenges to trial court orders determining compensation for court-appointed counsel; (1) those asserting that an incorrect legal standard has been applied in fixing fees; and (2) those asserting an abuse of discretion in the application of the proper legaT standard. We pointed out in Walters that: Our scope of review depends on what part of the challenge is being considered. Plaintiffs assertion that an incorrect legal standard was applied is reviewed on error. When an incorrect standard is applied we remand for new findings and application of the correct standard. When a correct legal standard is applied our review is greatly circumscribed; we affirm unless the trial court’s discretion “was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.””
    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.