Sweeney v. Kirby (N.D. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Sweeney v. Kirby (N.D. 2013). Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Wald v. Holmes
N.D. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sweeney, 2013 ND 9, ¶ 7 , 826 N.W.2d 330 .
cited Cited "see" Kartes v. Kartes
N.D. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sweeney, 2013 ND 9, ¶¶ 5-6 , 826 N.W.2d 330 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Weber v. Pennington
N.D. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Canerdy v. Canerdy, 2022 ND 61, ¶ 16 , 971 N.W.2d 873 (“While frustration of parenting time may not always be enough to ultimately modify primary residential responsibility, the evidence presented to the district court was sufficient to establish a prima facie case justifying modification and warranting an evidentiary hearing.”); see also Sweeney v. Kirby, 2013 ND 9 , ¶ 8, 826 N.W.2d 330 (reversing and ordering an evidentiary hearing because the movant “presented a prima facie case for modification based on interference with parenting time”). 3 [¶21] Pennington asserts the child…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Solwey v. Solwey (2×)
N.D. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Whether a party has established a prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility is a question of law which this Court reviews de novo.” Charvat, 2013 ND 145, ¶ 9 , 835 N.W.2d 846 ; see also Sweeney v. Kirby, 2013 ND 9, ¶ 3 , 826 N.W.2d 330 ; Wolt v. Wolt, 2011 ND 170, ¶ 9 , 803 N.W.2d 534 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Anderson v. Jenkins (2×)
N.D. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Whether a party has established a prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility is a question of law which this Court reviews de novo.” Charvat , 2013 ND 145, ¶ 9 ; see also Sweeney v. Kirby , 2013 ND 9, ¶ 3 , 826 N.W.2d 330; Wolt v. Wolt , 2011 ND 170, ¶ 9 , 803 N.W.2d 534. [¶9] We have explained that a prima facie case requires only enough evidence to permit a factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party’s favor.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sweeney
v.
Kirby
20120339.
North Dakota Supreme Court.
Jan 23, 2013.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

Filed 1/23/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2013 ND 3

In the Matter of the Adoption of D.J.D.

B.D.D., Petitioner and Appellant

v.

Executive Director of North Dakota

Department of Human Services; and R.H., Respondents

R.H., Appellee

No. 20120278

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Harlan Patrick Weir, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Daniel H. Oster (on brief), 619 Riverwood Drive, Suite 202, Bismarck, N.D. 58504, for petitioner and appellant.

Mark T. Blumer (on brief), P.O. Box 7340, Fargo, N.D. 58106, for respondent and appellee.

Adoption of D.J.D.

No. 20120278

Per Curiam.

[¶1] B.D.D. appeals from a district court order denying his petition for adoption.  Although his petition did not specifically request it, termination of the natural father’s parental rights would also have been required.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner