Hamilton v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The working group’s concerns regarding the complete disclosure of marital assets were the premise for the discussions regarding the California disclosure law. Working group members questioned whether legislation similar to that passed in California would rectify problems associated with parties who conceal or decide not to candidly disclose information regarding marital assets. California passed its disclosure law in 1993. The law was enacted to ensure fair and honest reporting of marital assets during the dissolution process. A party failing to comply with the disclosure requirements may be subject to a redistribution of the previous property division order as well as being required to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees and costs. The group discussed several issues concerning the implementation of a similar law in North Dakota, and noted in particular that disclosure laws would shift the burden from the victim to the perpetrator of nondisclosure. The working group decided the disclosure requirements were largely procedural in nature and, therefore, should be considered as a potential rule. The working group concluded the number of cases involving disclosure issues was probably small while the impact of a disclosure rule on cost and the potential for delay would be great. The group also determined that Rule 60 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, dealing with relief from a judgment or order when new information is obtained, provides relief similar to the disclosure”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Walstad v. Walstad

2. ““[I]n the appropriate situation, the Supreme Court of North Dakota has recognized an inherent power to vacate judgments in cases in which, ‘[¡justice to all parties demands that that shining light of truth be turned upon this case.’ Yorke v. Yorke, 3 N.D. 343, 351 , 55 N.W. 1095, 1099 (1893). “The inherent power of a court, in the interest of justice, to vacate or grant a party relief from judgment, has consistently been recognized in North Dakota. See, Yorke, 55 N.W. at 1099 ; Citizens State Bank of Selfridge v. Smeland, 48 N.D. 466, 470 , 184 N.W. 987, 988 (1921) (proper practice would have been to seek court’s use of its inherent powers); Lamb v. King, 70 N.D. 469, 473 , 296 N.W. 185, 187 (1941) (courts have inherent power to vacate judgments); see also In Re Braun, 145 N.W.2d 482, 484-85 (N.D.1966) (construing Rule 60[b][vi], N.D.R.Civ.P., as broad enough to give courts ample power to vacate judgments in the interest of justice.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Wayne-Juntunen Fertilizer Co. v. Lassonde

3. ““Any attempt to avoid, defeat or evade a judgment, or to deny its force and effect, in some incidental proceeding not 'provided for by law, with the express purpose of obtaining relief from that judgment is a collateral attack. 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 408(b) (1947 & Supp.1986). Any attempt to impeach a judgment by matters dehors the record in an action or proceeding with an independent purpose that contemplates some other relief or result is a collateral attack on the judgment. Olson v. Donnelly, 70 N.D. 370, 378 , 294 N.W. 666, 669 (1940). “ ‘A direct attack on á judgment is an attempt to avoid or correct it in some manner provided by law, in a proceeding instituted for that very purpose, in the same action and in the same court; ... ’ 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 408(a) (1947 & Supp.1986), quoted in Olson v. Donnelly, 294 N.W. at 669 .” [Emphasis in original].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Schaff v. Schaff