Schillerstrom v. Schillerstrom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““What is ‘jurisdiction’ in the strict sense of that term? By jurisdiction is meant authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine á cause of action. It does not depend upon the correctness of the decision made. A court which has jurisdiction over a cause, and the parties thereto, does not lose jurisdiction because it makes a mistake in determining either the facts or law or both. [Citations omitted.] Jurisdiction relates to the power of the tribunal, and not the rights of the parties. The test of the jurisdiction of a court is whether or not it had power to enter upon the inquiry; not whether its conclusion in the course of it was right or wrong. If a court acts in the exercise of its lawful jurisdiction, and not in excess of such jurisdiction, the mere fact that its conclusion is wrong does not make its action an excess of jurisdiction. [Citations omitted.] To obtain jurisdiction of a cause, three things are essential: (a) Jurisdiction of the subject matter; (b) jurisdiction of the person; and (c) the power and authority to render the particular judgment. [Citation omitted.]” 75 N.D. at 698-699 , 32 N.W.2d at 122 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kostelecky v. Engelter · Lang v. Basin Electric Power Cooperative

2. “Accordingly, even though the trial court erred in its finding of fact to the effect that the plaintiff had been domiciled in this state “for twelve months next preceding the commencement of the action,” which qualification is required of the plaintiff by 14-0517 as a prerequisite to “granting” a divorce, such an error is not an act in excess of jurisdiction, but merely an error in the exercise of jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to grant the divorce. If there was error, motion to' vacate the judgment was not the proper remedy for reviewing it. Wiemer v. Wiemer, 21 N.D. 371 , 130 N.W. 1015 . The time for appeal from that judgment has expired. It cannot now be attacked because of error. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Klaudt v. Klaudt

3. ““The rule supported by the overwhelming weight of authority is that fraud as a ground for vacating a judgment ‘must be what is known as “extrinsic” fraud, that is, fraud in the means whereby the judgment was procured, and not fraud in the cause of action or matter put in issue and presented for adjudication.’ 1 Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., pp. 461, 462; 31 Am.Jur., pp. 230, 231.” Jacobson v. Brey, 72 N.D. 269 , 6 N.W.2d 269, 273 ; Schillerstrom v. Schillerstrom, 75 N.D. 667 , 32 N.W.2d 106 , 2 A.L.R.2d 271 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goetz v. Gunsch