25 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Stout v. Stoutgreen2 sentences2009In Maynard , this Court examined decisions from other jurisdictions about motions to relocate in the context of joint custody and explained: "A motion to relocate and the Stout-Hawkinson factors alone are inadequate in handling the case of a parent with joint custody of a child wishing to relocate with the child. [ Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 , 560 N.W.2d 903 ; Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58 , 591 N.W.2d 144 .] We hold that a parent with joint legal and physical custody may not be granted permission to move with the parties' child, unless the district court first determines the best interes 2009In Maynard , this Court examined decisions from other jurisdictions about motions to relocate in the context of joint custody and explained: "A motion to relocate and the Stout-Hawkinson factors alone are inadequate in handling the case of a parent with joint custody of a child wishing to relocate with the child. [ Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 , 560 N.W.2d 903 ; Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58 , 591 N.W.2d 144 .] We hold that a parent with joint legal and physical custody may not be granted permission to move with the parties' child, unless the district court first determines the best interes | 6 | 13 |
Hawkinson v. Hawkinsongreen2 sentences2017Factor one of the Stout-Hawkinson factors requires consideration of the “prospective advantages of the move in improving the custodial parent’s' and child’s quality of life.” Hawkin son v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58, ¶ 6 , 591 N.W.2d 144 . 2017Factor one of the Stout-Hawkinson factors requires consideration of the “prospective advantages of the move in improving the custodial parent’s' and child’s quality of life.” Hawkin son v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58, ¶ 6 , 591 N.W.2d 144 . | 4 | 13 |
Asiama v. Asumenggreen2 sentences2026See Sayler v. Sayler, 2023 ND 156, ¶¶ 13, 20 , 994 N.W.2d 351 (providing N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07(1) and (2) “prohibit a parent from changing a child’s primary residence without a court order when an order granting primary or equal residential responsibility exists” and “when the initial determination of residential responsibility and a request to relocate are raised in the same proceeding, generally a district court must first determine primary residential responsibility by applying the best interest factors before addressing the relocation request by applying the Stout-Hawkinson factors”); cf. As 2026See Sayler v. Sayler, 2023 ND 156, ¶¶ 13, 20 , 994 N.W.2d 351 (providing N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07(1) and (2) “prohibit a parent from changing a child’s primary residence without a court order when an order granting primary or equal residential responsibility exists” and “when the initial determination of residential responsibility and a request to relocate are raised in the same proceeding, generally a district court must first determine primary residential responsibility by applying the best interest factors before addressing the relocation request by applying the Stout-Hawkinson factors”); cf. As | 2 | 3 |
Wright v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2023The parties do not cite, nor have we found, a case addressing whether a district court must apply the Stout-Hawkinson factors in a case where a party moves before requesting an order establishing primary residential responsibility. [¶22] This Court has explained the “distinction between an original award of custody and a decision to modify custody.” Wright v. Wright, 431 N.W.2d 301 , 6 303 (N.D. 1988). 2023The parties do not cite, nor have we found, a case addressing whether a district court must apply the Stout-Hawkinson factors in a case where a party moves before requesting an order establishing primary residential responsibility. [¶22] This Court has explained the “distinction between an original award of custody and a decision to modify custody.” Wright v. Wright, 431 N.W.2d 301 , 6 303 (N.D. 1988). | 2 | 2 |
Jelsing v. Petersongreen2 sentences2010See Jelsing v. Peterson, 2007 ND 41, ¶¶ 17-18 , 729 N.W.2d 157 (affirming the district court’s decision that the case was an original custody proceeding, award of custody after analysis of the “best interests” fac tors based on existing circumstances and decision to grant the request to move after analyzing the issue under the Stout-Haw-kinson factors). [¶ 58] The Stout-Hawkinson factors provide: 1. 2010See Jelsing v. Peterson, 2007 ND 41, ¶¶ 17-18 , 729 N.W.2d 157 (affirming the district court’s decision that the case was an original custody proceeding, award of custody after analysis of the “best interests” fac tors based on existing circumstances and decision to grant the request to move after analyzing the issue under the Stout-Haw-kinson factors). [¶ 58] The Stout-Hawkinson factors provide: 1. | 2 | 2 |
Dunn v. Dunngreen2 sentences2010See Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58, ¶¶ 6, 9 , 591 N.W.2d 144 ; Stout, 1997 ND 61, ¶ 34 , 560 N.W.2d 903 ; see, e.g., Dunn v. Dunn, 2009 ND 193, ¶¶ 21-22 , 775 N.W.2d 486 (Maring, J., specially concurring); Maynard v. McNett, 2006 ND 36, ¶ 21 , 710 N.W.2d 369 . 2010See Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58, ¶¶ 6, 9 , 591 N.W.2d 144 ; Stout, 1997 ND 61, ¶ 34 , 560 N.W.2d 903 ; see, e.g., Dunn v. Dunn, 2009 ND 193, ¶¶ 21-22 , 775 N.W.2d 486 (Maring, J., specially concurring); Maynard v. McNett, 2006 ND 36, ¶ 21 , 710 N.W.2d 369 . | 2 | 2 |
McDonough v. Murphygreen2 sentences2009The best-interests-of-the-child factors in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 must be applied rather than the Stout-Hawkinson factors. *489 McDonough , at 317. 2009The best-interests-of-the-child factors in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 must be applied rather than the Stout-Hawkinson factors. *489 McDonough , at 317. | 2 | 2 |
Maynard v. McNettgreen2 sentences2023“The Stout- Hawkinson factors are designed to address the best interests of the child for cases in which a primary custodian has already been designated and the custodial parent wishes to move.” Maynard, 2006 ND 36, ¶ 21 ; see also N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 (statute governing motions for relocation applies when 7 primary residential responsibility or equal residential responsibility has been established). 2023“The Stout- Hawkinson factors are designed to address the best interests of the child for cases in which a primary custodian has already been designated and the custodial parent wishes to move.” Maynard, 2006 ND 36, ¶ 21 ; see also N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 (statute governing motions for relocation applies when 7 primary residential responsibility or equal residential responsibility has been established). | 1 | 6 |
Hruby v. Hrubygreen2 sentences2012Hruby v. Hruby, 2009 ND 203, ¶ 9 , 776 N.W.2d 530 ; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2007 ND 66, ¶7 , 730 N.W.2d 833 . [¶ 14] The four-factor Stout-Hawkinson test is employed in assessing whether a prospective move is in a child’s best interests. 2012Hruby v. Hruby, 2009 ND 203, ¶ 9 , 776 N.W.2d 530 ; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2007 ND 66, ¶7 , 730 N.W.2d 833 . [¶ 14] The four-factor Stout-Hawkinson test is employed in assessing whether a prospective move is in a child’s best interests. | 1 | 3 |
Kienzle v. Selenskygreen2 sentences2010See Hruby v. Hruby , 2009 ND 203, ¶ 9 , 776 N.W.2d 530 ; Kienzle , 2007 ND 167, ¶ 13 , 740 N.W.2d 393 ; Gilbert v. Gilbert , 2007 ND 66, ¶ 8 , 730 N.W.2d 833 . [¶62] In the present case, Marsden sought primary residential responsibility of her children and permission to relocate to Winnipeg. 2010See Hruby v. Hruby , 2009 ND 203, ¶ 9 , 776 N.W.2d 530 ; Kienzle , 2007 ND 167, ¶ 13 , 740 N.W.2d 393 ; Gilbert v. Gilbert , 2007 ND 66, ¶ 8 , 730 N.W.2d 833 . [¶62] In the present case, Marsden sought primary residential responsibility of her children and permission to relocate to Winnipeg. | 1 | 2 |
Tibor v. Tiborgreen2 sentences2006As support for her argument, she .cites this Court’s application of the Stout-Hawkinson factors in Tibor v. Tibor. 1999 ND 150 , 598 N.W.2d 480 . [¶23] Actually, this Court’s opinion in Tibor provides an excellent example of why the Stout-Hawkinson test is inadequate in addressing the relocation of a child' whose parents share joint custody. 2006As support for her argument, she .cites this Court’s application of the Stout-Hawkinson factors in Tibor v. Tibor. 1999 ND 150 , 598 N.W.2d 480 . [¶23] Actually, this Court’s opinion in Tibor provides an excellent example of why the Stout-Hawkinson test is inadequate in addressing the relocation of a child' whose parents share joint custody. | 1 | 2 |
Tibor v. Tiborgreen2 sentences2006As support for her argument, she .cites this Court’s application of the Stout-Hawkinson factors in Tibor v. Tibor. 1999 ND 150 , 598 N.W.2d 480 . [¶23] Actually, this Court’s opinion in Tibor provides an excellent example of why the Stout-Hawkinson test is inadequate in addressing the relocation of a child' whose parents share joint custody. 2006As support for her argument, she .cites this Court’s application of the Stout-Hawkinson factors in Tibor v. Tibor. 1999 ND 150 , 598 N.W.2d 480 . [¶23] Actually, this Court’s opinion in Tibor provides an excellent example of why the Stout-Hawkinson test is inadequate in addressing the relocation of a child' whose parents share joint custody. | 1 | 2 |
Sayler v. Saylergreen2 sentences2026See Sayler v. Sayler, 2023 ND 156, ¶¶ 13, 20 , 994 N.W.2d 351 (providing N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07(1) and (2) “prohibit a parent from changing a child’s primary residence without a court order when an order granting primary or equal residential responsibility exists” and “when the initial determination of residential responsibility and a request to relocate are raised in the same proceeding, generally a district court must first determine primary residential responsibility by applying the best interest factors before addressing the relocation request by applying the Stout-Hawkinson factors”); cf. As 2026See Sayler v. Sayler, 2023 ND 156, ¶¶ 13, 20 , 994 N.W.2d 351 (providing N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07(1) and (2) “prohibit a parent from changing a child’s primary residence without a court order when an order granting primary or equal residential responsibility exists” and “when the initial determination of residential responsibility and a request to relocate are raised in the same proceeding, generally a district court must first determine primary residential responsibility by applying the best interest factors before addressing the relocation request by applying the Stout-Hawkinson factors”); cf. As | 1 | 1 |
Jacobs-Raak v. Raakgreen2 sentences2026Further, despite Christal Emme’s assertion Nicholas Emme testified he would not expect her to pay him child support, “[a]n agreement purporting to relieve an obligor of any current or future duty of child support is void and may not be enforced.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09-09.32(1); see also Jacobs-Raak v. Raak, 2020 ND 107, ¶ 32 , 942 N.W.2d 879 (“[T]he right to child support belongs to the child, not the parent who has a representational right to collect support on behalf of the child.”). [¶3] We summarily affirm the divorce judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). [¶4] Lisa Fair McEvers, 2026Further, despite Christal Emme’s assertion Nicholas Emme testified he would not expect her to pay him child support, “[a]n agreement purporting to relieve an obligor of any current or future duty of child support is void and may not be enforced.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09-09.32(1); see also Jacobs-Raak v. Raak, 2020 ND 107, ¶ 32 , 942 N.W.2d 879 (“[T]he right to child support belongs to the child, not the parent who has a representational right to collect support on behalf of the child.”). [¶3] We summarily affirm the divorce judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). [¶4] Lisa Fair McEvers, | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Tibor v. Tibor, 1999 ND 150, ¶ 19 , 598 N.W.2d 480 (reversing denial, court failed to give adequate consideration to keeping custodial family together after custodial parent wanted to relocate because new spouse had secured a high paying job out of state); Paulson v. Bauske, 1998 ND 17, ¶ 9 , 574 N.W.2d 801 (reversing denial, court failed to give adequate consideration to the need to keep the custodial family together after custodial parent wanted to relocate because new spouse secured employment in another state); see also Thomas v. Thomas, 446 N.W.2d 433, 435 (N.D.1989) (affirming 2007See, e.g., Tibor v. Tibor, 1999 ND 150, ¶ 19 , 598 N.W.2d 480 (reversing denial, court failed to give adequate consideration to keeping custodial family together after custodial parent wanted to relocate because new spouse had secured a high paying job out of state); Paulson v. Bauske, 1998 ND 17, ¶ 9 , 574 N.W.2d 801 (reversing denial, court failed to give adequate consideration to the need to keep the custodial family together after custodial parent wanted to relocate because new spouse secured employment in another state); see also Thomas v. Thomas, 446 N.W.2d 433, 435 (N.D.1989) (affirming | 1 | 1 |
| Anderson v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dvorak v. Dvorak
green
2 sentences2016B [1126] Conceicao argues the district court erred in its analysis of the second and fourth Stout-Hawkinson factors because there is no evidence to support the court’s findings. *63 [¶27] Under the second Stout-Hmv-kinson factor, the district court must consider “[t]he integrity ,of the custodial parent’s motive for relocation, considering whether it is to defeat or deter visitation by the noncustodial parent.” Dvorak, 2006 ND 171, ¶ 13 , 719 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Dvorak, 2005 ND 66, ¶16 , 693 N.W.2d 646 ). .Under the fourth factor, the court considers the negative impact of the proposed move on 2016B [1126] Conceicao argues the district court erred in its analysis of the second and fourth Stout-Hawkinson factors because there is no evidence to support the court’s findings. *63 [¶27] Under the second Stout-Hmv-kinson factor, the district court must consider “[t]he integrity ,of the custodial parent’s motive for relocation, considering whether it is to defeat or deter visitation by the noncustodial parent.” Dvorak, 2006 ND 171, ¶ 13 , 719 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Dvorak, 2005 ND 66, ¶16 , 693 N.W.2d 646 ). .Under the fourth factor, the court considers the negative impact of the proposed move on | 4 | 2007–2023 |
Green v. Swiers
green
2 sentences2024Green, 2018 ND 258, ¶ 5 . 2024Green, 2018 ND 258, ¶ 5 . | 3 | 2024–2024 |
Gilbert v. Gilbert
green
2 sentences2012Hruby v. Hruby, 2009 ND 203, ¶ 9 , 776 N.W.2d 530 ; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2007 ND 66, ¶7 , 730 N.W.2d 833 . [¶ 14] The four-factor Stout-Hawkinson test is employed in assessing whether a prospective move is in a child’s best interests. 2012Hruby v. Hruby, 2009 ND 203, ¶ 9 , 776 N.W.2d 530 ; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2007 ND 66, ¶7 , 730 N.W.2d 833 . [¶ 14] The four-factor Stout-Hawkinson test is employed in assessing whether a prospective move is in a child’s best interests. | 3 | 2010–2012 |
Reimche v. Reimche
green
2 sentences2024This Court has recognized “[a] visitation schedule which provides less frequent, but extended, visitation periods can preserve a noncustodial parent’s right to foster and develop a relationship with the child”; we also “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings.” Goff v. Goff, 1999 ND 95, ¶ 18 , 593 N.W.2d 768 ; Reimche v. Reimche, 1997 ND 138, ¶ 12 , 566 N.W.2d 790 . 2024This Court has recognized “[a] visitation schedule which provides less frequent, but extended, visitation periods can preserve a noncustodial parent’s right to foster and develop a relationship with the child”; we also “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings.” Goff v. Goff, 1999 ND 95, ¶ 18 , 593 N.W.2d 768 ; Reimche v. Reimche, 1997 ND 138, ¶ 12 , 566 N.W.2d 790 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Goff v. Goff
green
2 sentences2024This Court has recognized “[a] visitation schedule which provides less frequent, but extended, visitation periods can preserve a noncustodial parent’s right to foster and develop a relationship with the child”; we also “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings.” Goff v. Goff, 1999 ND 95, ¶ 18 , 593 N.W.2d 768 ; Reimche v. Reimche, 1997 ND 138, ¶ 12 , 566 N.W.2d 790 . 2024This Court has recognized “[a] visitation schedule which provides less frequent, but extended, visitation periods can preserve a noncustodial parent’s right to foster and develop a relationship with the child”; we also “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings.” Goff v. Goff, 1999 ND 95, ¶ 18 , 593 N.W.2d 768 ; Reimche v. Reimche, 1997 ND 138, ¶ 12 , 566 N.W.2d 790 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Marsden v. Koop
green
2 sentences2023Marsden v. Koop, 2010 ND 196, ¶ 9 , 789 N.W.2d 531 (“An initial custody determination requires that the district court award primary residential responsibility of children to the parent who will better promote the best interests and welfare of the children.”); Wright, 431 N.W.2d at 303 (“[An] original custody award revolves solely around the best interests of the children.”). 2023Marsden v. Koop, 2010 ND 196, ¶ 9 , 789 N.W.2d 531 (“An initial custody determination requires that the district court award primary residential responsibility of children to the parent who will better promote the best interests and welfare of the children.”); Wright, 431 N.W.2d at 303 (“[An] original custody award revolves solely around the best interests of the children.”). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Marsden v. Koop
green
2 sentences2023Marsden v. Koop, 2010 ND 196, ¶ 9 , 789 N.W.2d 531 (“An initial custody determination requires that the district court award primary residential responsibility of children to the parent who will better promote the best interests and welfare of the children.”); Wright, 431 N.W.2d at 303 (“[An] original custody award revolves solely around the best interests of the children.”). 2023Marsden v. Koop, 2010 ND 196, ¶ 9 , 789 N.W.2d 531 (“An initial custody determination requires that the district court award primary residential responsibility of children to the parent who will better promote the best interests and welfare of the children.”); Wright, 431 N.W.2d at 303 (“[An] original custody award revolves solely around the best interests of the children.”). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Dvorak v. Dvorak
green
2 sentences2016B [1126] Conceicao argues the district court erred in its analysis of the second and fourth Stout-Hawkinson factors because there is no evidence to support the court’s findings. *63 [¶27] Under the second Stout-Hmv-kinson factor, the district court must consider “[t]he integrity ,of the custodial parent’s motive for relocation, considering whether it is to defeat or deter visitation by the noncustodial parent.” Dvorak, 2006 ND 171, ¶ 13 , 719 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Dvorak, 2005 ND 66, ¶16 , 693 N.W.2d 646 ). .Under the fourth factor, the court considers the negative impact of the proposed move on 2016B [1126] Conceicao argues the district court erred in its analysis of the second and fourth Stout-Hawkinson factors because there is no evidence to support the court’s findings. *63 [¶27] Under the second Stout-Hmv-kinson factor, the district court must consider “[t]he integrity ,of the custodial parent’s motive for relocation, considering whether it is to defeat or deter visitation by the noncustodial parent.” Dvorak, 2006 ND 171, ¶ 13 , 719 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Dvorak, 2005 ND 66, ¶16 , 693 N.W.2d 646 ). .Under the fourth factor, the court considers the negative impact of the proposed move on | 2 | 2006–2016 |
Pember v. Shapiro
green
2 sentences2012E.g., Pember v. Shapiro, 2011 ND 31, ¶ 23 , 794 N.W.2d 435 ; see Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58 , 591 N.W.2d 144 ; Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 , 560 N.W.2d 903 . 2012E.g., Pember v. Shapiro, 2011 ND 31, ¶ 23 , 794 N.W.2d 435 ; see Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58 , 591 N.W.2d 144 ; Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 , 560 N.W.2d 903 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Pember v. Shapiro
green
2 sentences2012E.g., Pember v. Shapiro, 2011 ND 31, ¶ 23 , 794 N.W.2d 435 ; see Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58 , 591 N.W.2d 144 ; Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 , 560 N.W.2d 903 . 2012E.g., Pember v. Shapiro, 2011 ND 31, ¶ 23 , 794 N.W.2d 435 ; see Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58 , 591 N.W.2d 144 ; Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61 , 560 N.W.2d 903 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Norby v. Hinesley
green
2 sentences2024Norby, 2020 ND 153, ¶ 22 . [¶22] Travis Nelson is misinterpreting the district court’s order and the Stout- Hawkinson factors. 2024Norby, 2020 ND 153, ¶ 22 . [¶22] Travis Nelson is misinterpreting the district court’s order and the Stout- Hawkinson factors. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Larson v. Larson
green
2 sentences2017Larson v. Larson, 2016 ND 76, ¶ 21 , 878 N.W.2d 54 . 2017Larson v. Larson, 2016 ND 76, ¶ 21 , 878 N.W.2d 54 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Stai-Johnson v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence2016Stai-Johnson, 20 15 ND 99 , ¶ 13, 862 N.W.2d 823 . [¶28] Considering the second Strntr-Hawkinson factor, the district court found “[considering the parties’ history since the divorce, in the end, the Court is left with the impression. that [Conceicao’s] request to relocate is, at least in part, motivated by a desire to limit [Larson’s] regular contact with the children.” Expressing concern with Conceicao’s potential for noncompliance with restructured parenting time, the district court addressed the fourth factor at length: [Conceicao] has expressed a willingness to adjust [Larson’s] parenting | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Paulson v. Bauske
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Tibor v. Tibor, 1999 ND 150, ¶ 19 , 598 N.W.2d 480 (reversing denial, court failed to give adequate consideration to keeping custodial family together after custodial parent wanted to relocate because new spouse had secured a high paying job out of state); Paulson v. Bauske, 1998 ND 17, ¶ 9 , 574 N.W.2d 801 (reversing denial, court failed to give adequate consideration to the need to keep the custodial family together after custodial parent wanted to relocate because new spouse secured employment in another state); see also Thomas v. Thomas, 446 N.W.2d 433, 435 (N.D.1989) (affirming 2007See, e.g., Tibor v. Tibor, 1999 ND 150, ¶ 19 , 598 N.W.2d 480 (reversing denial, court failed to give adequate consideration to keeping custodial family together after custodial parent wanted to relocate because new spouse had secured a high paying job out of state); Paulson v. Bauske, 1998 ND 17, ¶ 9 , 574 N.W.2d 801 (reversing denial, court failed to give adequate consideration to the need to keep the custodial family together after custodial parent wanted to relocate because new spouse secured employment in another state); see also Thomas v. Thomas, 446 N.W.2d 433, 435 (N.D.1989) (affirming | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Porter v. Porter
green
2 sentences2007Porter, 2006 ND 123, ¶ 6 , 714 N.W.2d 865 . *837 [¶ 9] In this case, the district court made findings on the four Stout-Hawkinson factors. 2007Porter, 2006 ND 123, ¶ 6 , 714 N.W.2d 865 . *837 [¶ 9] In this case, the district court made findings on the four Stout-Hawkinson factors. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Voit v. Voit green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Oppegard-Gessler v. Gessler green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.