Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The general rule is that one who accepts a substantial benefit of a divorce judgment waives the right to appeal from the judgment. This court has sharply limited the rule in domestic cases to promote a strong policy in favor of reaching the merits of an appeal. Before a waiver of the right to appeal can be found, there must be an unconditional, voluntary, and conscious acceptance of a substantial benefit under the judgment. The party objecting to the appeal has the burden of showing the benefit accepted by the appealing party is one which the party would not be entitled to without the decree. There must be unusual circumstances, demonstrating prejudice to the movant, or a very clear intent on the part of the appealing party to accept the judgment and waive the right to appeal, to keep this court from reaching the merits of the appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sommers v. Sommers

2. “In determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider whether it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, among others, whether: a. Another state is or recently was the child’s home state; b. Another state has a closer connection with the child and the child’s family or with the child and one or more of the contestants; c. Substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state; d. The parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and e. The exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the purposes stated in section 14-14-01.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wintz v. Crabtree

3. “There are two types of spousal support. Permanent spousal support is appropriate to provide traditional maintenance for a spouse who is incapable of rehabilitation. van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93, 100 (N.D.1994). Rehabilitative support is appropriate to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent status or to equalize the burden of divorce. Lill v. Lill, 520 N.W.2d 855 (N.D.1994). A trial court’s spousal support decisions are treated as findings of fact which will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. LaVoi v. LaVoi, 505 N.W.2d 384, 386 (N.D.1993). The complaining party bears the burden of demonstrating on appeal a finding of fact is clearly erroneous. Sateren v. Sateren, 488 N.W.2d 631 (N.D.1992).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Van Klootwyk v. Van Klootwyk