Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weber v. Penningtongreen1 sentence2026The statutory procedure allows the district court to eliminate unsupported or frivolous cases without imposing upon the court and the parties the burden and expense of an unnecessary evidentiary hearing.” Weber, 2025 ND 105, ¶ 7 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 8277green1 sentence2013Co., 70 F.3d 394, 397 (5th Cir.1995)); People v. Martin, 670 P.2d 22, 24 (Colo.App.1983) (“[Ojnce the defendant has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the issue of whether there was probable cause to bind him over after a preliminary hearing becomes moot.”). [¶ 16] The same rationale applies to the prima facie case requirement under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). | 1 | 1 |
Schumacker v. Schumackergreen1 sentence2013Kourajian v. Kourajian, 2008 ND 8, ¶ 12 , *736 744 N.W.2d 274 ; see also Schumacher, 2011 ND 75 , ¶ 7, 796 N.W.2d 636 . | 1 | 1 |
Tank v. Tankgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Tank v. Tank, 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9 , 673 N.W.2d 622 ; Volz v. Peterson, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8 , 667 N.W.2d 637 ; O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 . 2013See, e.g., Tank v. Tank, 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9 , 673 N.W.2d 622 ; Volz v. Peterson, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8 , 667 N.W.2d 637 ; O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 . | 1 | 1 |
Schumacker v. Schumackergreen1 sentence2013Kourajian v. Kourajian, 2008 ND 8, ¶ 12 , *736 744 N.W.2d 274 ; see also Schumacher, 2011 ND 75 , ¶ 7, 796 N.W.2d 636 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martingreen1 sentence2013Co., 70 F.3d 394, 397 (5th Cir.1995)); People v. Martin, 670 P.2d 22, 24 (Colo.App.1983) (“[Ojnce the defendant has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the issue of whether there was probable cause to bind him over after a preliminary hearing becomes moot.”). [¶ 16] The same rationale applies to the prima facie case requirement under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kartes v. Kartes
green
2 sentences2025“The purpose of the prima facie case requirement is to avoid holding modification hearings based on mere allegations alone[.]” Kartes v. Kartes, 2013 ND 106, ¶ 12 , 831 N.W.2d 731 . 2025“The purpose of the prima facie case requirement is to avoid holding modification hearings based on mere allegations alone[.]” Kartes v. Kartes, 2013 ND 106, ¶ 12 , 831 N.W.2d 731 . | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Kerzmann v. Kerzmann
green
2 sentences2026“Whether a party has established a prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility is a question of law which we review de novo.” Id. (quoting Jensen v. Jensen, 2023 ND 22, ¶ 3 , 985 N.W.2d 679 ). [¶9] “The purpose of the prima facie case requirement is to avoid holding modification hearings based on mere allegations alone. 2025The statutory procedure “allows the district court to eliminate unsupported or frivolous cases without imposing upon the court and the parties the burden and expense of an unnecessary evidentiary hearing.” Id. [¶8] A party moving for primary residential responsibility is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if new facts have arisen since the prior order constituting a material change of circumstances, and “modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(6); Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 2021 ND 183, ¶ 6 , 965 N.W.2d 427 . | 2 | 2025–2026 |
Schroeder v. Schroeder
green
2 sentences2025N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4); Schroeder v. Schroeder, 2014 ND 106, ¶ 7 , 846 N.W.2d 716 . [¶7] “The purpose of the prima facie case requirement is to avoid holding modification hearings based on mere allegations alone[.]” Kartes v. Kartes, 2013 ND 106, ¶ 12 , 831 N.W.2d 731 . 2025N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4); Schroeder v. Schroeder, 2014 ND 106, ¶ 7 , 846 N.W.2d 716 . [¶7] “The purpose of the prima facie case requirement is to avoid holding modification hearings based on mere allegations alone[.]” Kartes v. Kartes, 2013 ND 106, ¶ 12 , 831 N.W.2d 731 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Jensen v. Jensen
neutral
2 sentences2026“Whether a party has established a prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility is a question of law which we review de novo.” Id. (quoting Jensen v. Jensen, 2023 ND 22, ¶ 3 , 985 N.W.2d 679 ). [¶9] “The purpose of the prima facie case requirement is to avoid holding modification hearings based on mere allegations alone. 2026“Whether a party has established a prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility is a question of law which we review de novo.” Id. (quoting Jensen v. Jensen, 2023 ND 22, ¶ 3 , 985 N.W.2d 679 ). [¶9] “The purpose of the prima facie case requirement is to avoid holding modification hearings based on mere allegations alone. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
O'Neill v. O'Neill
green
2 sentences2013See, e.g., Tank v. Tank, 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9 , 673 N.W.2d 622 ; Volz v. Peterson, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8 , 667 N.W.2d 637 ; O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 . 2013See, e.g., Tank v. Tank, 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9 , 673 N.W.2d 622 ; Volz v. Peterson, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8 , 667 N.W.2d 637 ; O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Volz v. Peterson
green
2 sentences2013See, e.g., Tank v. Tank, 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9 , 673 N.W.2d 622 ; Volz v. Peterson, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8 , 667 N.W.2d 637 ; O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 . 2013See, e.g., Tank v. Tank, 2004 ND 15, ¶ 9 , 673 N.W.2d 622 ; Volz v. Peterson, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 8 , 667 N.W.2d 637 ; O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kourajian v. Kourajian
green
1 sentence2013Kourajian v. Kourajian, 2008 ND 8, ¶ 12 , *736 744 N.W.2d 274 ; see also Schumacher, 2011 ND 75 , ¶ 7, 796 N.W.2d 636 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kourajian v. Kourajian
green
1 sentence2013Kourajian v. Kourajian, 2008 ND 8, ¶ 12 , *736 744 N.W.2d 274 ; see also Schumacher, 2011 ND 75 , ¶ 7, 796 N.W.2d 636 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.