Lund v. Lund’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
July 2025
most recently cited
22 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark · Peterson v. Zerr · Hartleib v. Simes · Lynnes v. Lynnes · Riemers v. City of Grand Forks
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law presumes a judge is unbiased and not prejudiced. We have said [a] ruling adverse to a party in the same or prior proceeding does not render a judge biased so as to require disqualification. The test for the appearance of impartiality is one of reasonableness and recusal is not required in response to spurious or vague charges of impartiality.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rath v. Rath · Datz v. Dosch“A court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wallace
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.