Rubeling v. Rubeling’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 27 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “arises through public policy and necessity, it being in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation. Also, the doctrine arises from the need to prevent hardship on the individual and to prevent his being vexed twice for the same cause.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goetzel v. State · Matter of Paternity of JRW

2. “"Should the procedure [whereby the supreme court awards appellate attorney fees] be considered exclusive? We think it should. Public policy and the public interest require such a holding. In the first place, appeals to the supreme court are from a judgment or `final order' of the district court. Except for the performance of further duties assigned to him under the rules or statutes, the jurisdiction of the trial judge should end with the entry of the final judgment or order appealed from. "This is in keeping with the practice followed by federal courts under the federal rules. See Walleck v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 128 F.2d 343, 344 ; Thompson v. Harry C. Erb Inc., 3 Cir., 240 F.2d 452, 454 ; and 3A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1558, p. 85 (Rules Edition, 1958). " There is good reason for the supreme court rather than the district court to pass upon the need for ordering payment of an attorney's fee in an appeal, and the supreme court is in a better position to say what, under the circumstances, is a reasonable and proper fee for legal service in that court. Moreover, it would not be proper for the trial court to control the appeal, and there would be some instances in which it could control whether an appeal is carried by a husband to the supreme court, merely by deciding that an attorney's fee should be paid to appellee and by fixing the amount thereof." (Emphasis added.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. DeWitt v. Balben · Carlson v. Dunn County

3. “"* * * [W]e are compelled to answer that proof of change of circumstances is required in a support-modification proceeding, even though it is proved that the support requirements are, for practical purposes, impossible of attainment by the father."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hendrickson v. Hendrickson · Johnson v. Johnson