Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McAllister v. McAllister

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 16, 2010No. 20090176Published

1Concurrence

CROTHERS, Justice,

specially concurring.

[¶ 29] I concur in the result based on what I believe is the majority’s careful, albeit expanding, application of our precedent. By definition that precedent consists of ad hoc adjudication of third-party claims for child custody or visitation. I write separately to express concern that our body of law being propagated ad judi-cium has resulted, and will continue to result, in the judiciary being pulled deep into the legislature’s policymaking domain.

[¶ 30] We know without citation to authority that adult relationships sometimes disintegrate and that…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. E.N.O. v. L.M.M.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
  2. Hust v. HustNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Wallin v. WallinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
  4. Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Mansukhani v. PailingNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API