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.
28 North Dakota opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lc v. Rpgreen2 sentences2023See L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96, ¶ 18 , 563 N.W.2d 799 (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”). 2023See L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96, ¶ 18 , 563 N.W.2d 799 (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”). | 3 | 4 |
Rosalyn Motley v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011Generally, “[a] party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.” Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 (citing Motley v. United States, 295 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir.2002)); see generally 54 C.J.S. 2011Generally, “[a] party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.” Kimball v. Landeis , 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 (citing Motley v. United States , 295 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir. 2002)); see generally 54 C.J.S. | 2 | 3 |
Cameron, Vanessagreen2 sentences2023See State v. Rademacher, 2023 ND 9, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 660 (quoting L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96 , ¶ 18, 563 N.W.2d 799 ) (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 401 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Mass. 1980) (“The burden is clearly on the defendant to demonstrate that the public was excluded from his trial[.]”); Cameron v. State, 490 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Tex. Crim. 2023See State v. Rademacher, 2023 ND 9, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 660 (quoting L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96 , ¶ 18, 563 N.W.2d 799 ) (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 401 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Mass. 1980) (“The burden is clearly on the defendant to demonstrate that the public was excluded from his trial[.]”); Cameron v. State, 490 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rademachergreen2 sentences2023See State v. Rademacher, 2023 ND 9, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 660 (quoting L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96 , ¶ 18, 563 N.W.2d 799 ) (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 401 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Mass. 1980) (“The burden is clearly on the defendant to demonstrate that the public was excluded from his trial[.]”); Cameron v. State, 490 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Tex. Crim. 2023See State v. Rademacher, 2023 ND 9, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 660 (quoting L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96 , ¶ 18, 563 N.W.2d 799 ) (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 401 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Mass. 1980) (“The burden is clearly on the defendant to demonstrate that the public was excluded from his trial[.]”); Cameron v. State, 490 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2023See State v. Rademacher, 2023 ND 9, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 660 (quoting L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96 , ¶ 18, 563 N.W.2d 799 ) (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 401 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Mass. 1980) (“The burden is clearly on the defendant to demonstrate that the public was excluded from his trial[.]”); Cameron v. State, 490 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Tex. Crim. 2023See State v. Rademacher, 2023 ND 9, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 660 (quoting L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96 , ¶ 18, 563 N.W.2d 799 ) (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 401 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Mass. 1980) (“The burden is clearly on the defendant to demonstrate that the public was excluded from his trial[.]”); Cameron v. State, 490 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Rademacher, 2023 ND 9, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 660 (quoting L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96 , ¶ 18, 563 N.W.2d 799 ) (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 401 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Mass. 1980) (“The burden is clearly on the defendant to demonstrate that the public was excluded from his trial[.]”); Cameron v. State, 490 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Tex. Crim. 2023See State v. Rademacher, 2023 ND 9, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 660 (quoting L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96 , ¶ 18, 563 N.W.2d 799 ) (“On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing error.”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 401 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Mass. 1980) (“The burden is clearly on the defendant to demonstrate that the public was excluded from his trial[.]”); Cameron v. State, 490 S.W.3d 57, 69 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2012We have also said that “‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe , 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis , 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g. , In re J.H. , 264 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008); In re Rodriguez , 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008). 2012We have also said that “ ‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’ ” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe, 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g., In re J.H., 264 S.W.3d 919 , 922 (Tex.Ct.App.2008); In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex.Ct.App.2008). | 2 | 2 |
In Re JHgreen2 sentences2012We have also said that “‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe , 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis , 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g. , In re J.H. , 264 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008); In re Rodriguez , 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008). 2012We have also said that “ ‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’ ” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe, 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g., In re J.H., 264 S.W.3d 919 , 922 (Tex.Ct.App.2008); In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex.Ct.App.2008). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences2003Ct. App. 1997) (affirming defendant’s sentence because the defendant did not carry the burden of showing error); Brattain v. State , 777 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (stating defendant failed to demonstrate error when he failed to present any documentation to the trial court that he was entitled to credit for time served and failed to present an adequate record showing the trial court erred); State v. Wilkinson , 539 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (stating the offender has the burden to establish entitlement to specific jail credit); State v. Moore , 1994 Tenn. Crim. 2003See Hires v. State, 688 So.2d 414, 414-15 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (affirming defendant’s sentence because the defendant did not carry the burden of showing error); Brattain v. State, 111 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (stating defendant failed to demonstrate error when he failed to present any documentation to the trial court that he was entitled to credit for time served and failed to present an adequate record showing the trial court erred); State v. Wilkinson, 539 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn.Ct.App.1995) (stating the offender has the burden to establish entitlement to specific jail credit); Sta | 2 | 2 |
Brattain v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Ct. App. 1997) (affirming defendant’s sentence because the defendant did not carry the burden of showing error); Brattain v. State , 777 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (stating defendant failed to demonstrate error when he failed to present any documentation to the trial court that he was entitled to credit for time served and failed to present an adequate record showing the trial court erred); State v. Wilkinson , 539 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (stating the offender has the burden to establish entitlement to specific jail credit); State v. Moore , 1994 Tenn. Crim. 2003See Hires v. State, 688 So.2d 414, 414-15 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (affirming defendant's sentence because the defendant did not carry the burden of showing error); Brattain v. State, 777 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (stating defendant failed to demonstrate error when he failed to present any documentation to the trial court that he was entitled to credit for time served and failed to present an adequate record showing the trial court erred); State v. Wilkinson, 539 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn.Ct.App.1995) (stating the offender has the burden to establish entitlement to specific jail credit); Sta | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ashgreen2 sentences2001Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp, 1998 ND 78, ¶ 21 , 576 N.W.2d 505 ; Loran v. Iszler, 373 N.W.2d 870, 874 (N.D.1985). [¶ 8] “On appeal, the trial court is presumed to have acted correctly,” State v. Ash, 526 N.W.2d 473, 483 (N.D.1995), and “the appellant bears the burden of showing error,” L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96, ¶ 18 , 563 N.W.2d 799 . 1996The district court “is presumed to have acted correctly and the burden of showing error is on the appellant.” State v. Ash, 526 N.W.2d 473, 483 (N.D.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Erickson v. Wipergreen2 sentences1953“Indeed error is never presumed on appeal, 'but must be affirmatively shown by the record; and the burden of so showing it is on the party alleging it, or, as sometimes stated, the burden of showing error affirmatively is upon appellant.” 4 C.J. 731-733; 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1533; Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N.D. 193, 222 , 157 N.W. 592 ; Ramage v. Trepanier, 69 N.D. 19, 26 , 283 N.W. 471 ; State v. Van Horne, 71 N.D. 455, 457 , 2 N.W.2d 1 . 1953“Indeed error is never presumed on appeal, 'but must be affirmatively shown by the record; and the burden of so showing it is on the party alleging it, or, as sometimes stated, the burden of showing error affirmatively is upon appellant.” 4 C.J. 731-733; 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1533; Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N.D. 193, 222 , 157 N.W. 592 ; Ramage v. Trepanier, 69 N.D. 19, 26 , 283 N.W. 471 ; State v. Van Horne, 71 N.D. 455, 457 , 2 N.W.2d 1 . | 1 | 3 |
Hires v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Hires v. State, 688 So.2d 414, 414-15 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (affirming defendant's sentence because the defendant did not carry the burden of showing error); Brattain v. State, 777 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (stating defendant failed to demonstrate error when he failed to present any documentation to the trial court that he was entitled to credit for time served and failed to present an adequate record showing the trial court erred); State v. Wilkinson, 539 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn.Ct.App.1995) (stating the offender has the burden to establish entitlement to specific jail credit); Sta 2003See Hires v. State, 688 So.2d 414, 414-15 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (affirming defendant’s sentence because the defendant did not carry the burden of showing error); Brattain v. State, 111 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (stating defendant failed to demonstrate error when he failed to present any documentation to the trial court that he was entitled to credit for time served and failed to present an adequate record showing the trial court erred); State v. Wilkinson, 539 N.W.2d 249, 252 (Minn.Ct.App.1995) (stating the offender has the burden to establish entitlement to specific jail credit); Sta | 1 | 1 |
Loran v. Iszlergreen1 sentence2001Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp, 1998 ND 78, ¶ 21 , 576 N.W.2d 505 ; Loran v. Iszler, 373 N.W.2d 870, 874 (N.D.1985). [¶ 8] “On appeal, the trial court is presumed to have acted correctly,” State v. Ash, 526 N.W.2d 473, 483 (N.D.1995), and “the appellant bears the burden of showing error,” L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96, ¶ 18 , 563 N.W.2d 799 . | 1 | 1 |
Edward L. Flanigan v. Burlington Northern Inc., a Corporationgreen1 sentence1990See, e.g., Flanigan v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 632 F.2d 880, 889 (8th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Brissman v. Thistlethwaitegreen2 sentences1982Brissman v. Thistlethwaite, 49 N.D. 417 , 192 N.W. 85, 87 (1922). 1982Brissman v. Thistlethwaite, 49 N.D. 417 , 192 N.W. 85, 87 (1922). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kimball v. Landeis
green
2 sentences2012We have also said that “ ‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’ ” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe, 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g., In re J.H., 264 S.W.3d 919 , 922 (Tex.Ct.App.2008); In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex.Ct.App.2008). 2012We have also said that “ ‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’ ” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe, 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g., In re J.H., 264 S.W.3d 919 , 922 (Tex.Ct.App.2008); In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex.Ct.App.2008). | 4 | 2011–2012 |
Lindsay v. Teamsters Union, Local No. 74
green
2 sentences1971Lindsay v. Teamsters Union, Local No. 74, supra ; First National Bank of Crary v. Bremseth, 60 N.D. 401 , 234 N. W. 758 (1931); Mevorah v. Goodman, supra . 1971Lindsay v. Teamsters Union, Local No. 74, supra; First National Bank of Crary v. Bremseth, 60 N.D. 401 , 234 N.W. 758 (1931); Mevorah v. Goodman, supra. The record has been examined and we find that the State has failed to sustain the burden of proof. | 3 | 1966–1971 |
Mevorah v. Goodman
green
2 sentences1971Lindsay v. Teamsters Union, Local No. 74, supra ; First National Bank of Crary v. Bremseth, 60 N.D. 401 , 234 N. W. 758 (1931); Mevorah v. Goodman, supra . 1971Lindsay v. Teamsters Union, Local No. 74, supra; First National Bank of Crary v. Bremseth, 60 N.D. 401 , 234 N.W. 758 (1931); Mevorah v. Goodman, supra. The record has been examined and we find that the State has failed to sustain the burden of proof. | 3 | 1959–1971 |
First National Bank v. Bremseth
neutral
2 sentences1971Lindsay v. Teamsters Union, Local No. 74, supra; First National Bank of Crary v. Bremseth, 60 N.D. 401 , 234 N.W. 758 (1931); Mevorah v. Goodman, supra. The record has been examined and we find that the State has failed to sustain the burden of proof. 1971Lindsay v. Teamsters Union, Local No. 74, supra; First National Bank of Crary v. Bremseth, 60 N.D. 401 , 234 N.W. 758 (1931); Mevorah v. Goodman, supra. The record has been examined and we find that the State has failed to sustain the burden of proof. | 3 | 1959–1971 |
F/S Manufacturing v. Kensmoe
green
2 sentences2012We have also said that “‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe , 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis , 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g. , In re J.H. , 264 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008); In re Rodriguez , 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008). 2012We have also said that “ ‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’ ” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe, 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g., In re J.H., 264 S.W.3d 919 , 922 (Tex.Ct.App.2008); In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex.Ct.App.2008). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
F/S Manufacturing v. Kensmoe
green
2 sentences2012We have also said that “‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe , 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis , 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g. , In re J.H. , 264 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008); In re Rodriguez , 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008). 2012We have also said that “ ‘a party who claims the benefit of an exception to a statute of limitations bears the burden of showing the exception.’ ” F/S Mfg. v. Kensmoe, 2011 ND 113 , ¶ 26, 798 N.W.2d 853 (quoting Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, ¶ 29 , 652 N.W.2d 330 ); see, e.g., In re J.H., 264 S.W.3d 919 , 922 (Tex.Ct.App.2008); In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex.Ct.App.2008). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Ramage v. Trepanier
green
2 sentences1953“Indeed error is never presumed on appeal, 'but must be affirmatively shown by the record; and the burden of so showing it is on the party alleging it, or, as sometimes stated, the burden of showing error affirmatively is upon appellant.” 4 C.J. 731-733; 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1533; Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N.D. 193, 222 , 157 N.W. 592 ; Ramage v. Trepanier, 69 N.D. 19, 26 , 283 N.W. 471 ; State v. Van Horne, 71 N.D. 455, 457 , 2 N.W.2d 1 . 1953“Indeed error is never presumed on appeal, 'but must be affirmatively shown by the record; and the burden of so showing it is on the party alleging it, or, as sometimes stated, the burden of showing error affirmatively is upon appellant.” 4 C.J. 731-733; 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1533; Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N.D. 193, 222 , 157 N.W. 592 ; Ramage v. Trepanier, 69 N.D. 19, 26 , 283 N.W. 471 ; State v. Van Horne, 71 N.D. 455, 457 , 2 N.W.2d 1 . | 2 | 1953–1953 |
State v. Van Horne
green
2 sentences1953“Indeed error is never presumed on appeal, 'but must be affirmatively shown by the record; and the burden of so showing it is on the party alleging it, or, as sometimes stated, the burden of showing error affirmatively is upon appellant.” 4 C.J. 731-733; 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1533; Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N.D. 193, 222 , 157 N.W. 592 ; Ramage v. Trepanier, 69 N.D. 19, 26 , 283 N.W. 471 ; State v. Van Horne, 71 N.D. 455, 457 , 2 N.W.2d 1 . 1953“Indeed error is never presumed on appeal, 'but must be affirmatively shown by the record; and the burden of so showing it is on the party alleging it, or, as sometimes stated, the burden of showing error affirmatively is upon appellant.” 4 C.J. 731-733; 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1533; Erickson v. Wiper, 33 N.D. 193, 222 , 157 N.W. 592 ; Ramage v. Trepanier, 69 N.D. 19, 26 , 283 N.W. 471 ; State v. Van Horne, 71 N.D. 455, 457 , 2 N.W.2d 1 . | 2 | 1953–1953 |
State v. Littleghost
green
1 sentence2026Littleghost, 2025 ND 65, ¶ 17 . 2 [¶29] To obtain relief under obvious error, Haskins has the burden of showing the error affected his substantial rights. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Chambers
neutral
1 sentence2026Chambers, 2025 ND 178, ¶ 7 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Reid v. Cuprum SA, De C.U.
green
2 sentences2002Id. [¶ 30] Here, as in Reid, 2000 ND 108, ¶ 16 , 611 N.W.2d 187 , Kimball’s failure to commence his action by serving Landeis’s guardian within the statute of limitations was not the result of his timely pursuit of one of several other available legal remedies which may have tolled the statute of limitations for this claim. 2002Id. [¶ 30] Here, as in Reid, 2000 ND 108, ¶ 16 , 611 N.W.2d 187 , Kimball’s failure to commence his action by serving Landeis’s guardian within the statute of limitations was not the result of his timely pursuit of one of several other available legal remedies which may have tolled the statute of limitations for this claim. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp
green
2 sentences2001Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp, 1998 ND 78, ¶ 21 , 576 N.W.2d 505 ; Loran v. Iszler, 373 N.W.2d 870, 874 (N.D.1985). [¶ 8] “On appeal, the trial court is presumed to have acted correctly,” State v. Ash, 526 N.W.2d 473, 483 (N.D.1995), and “the appellant bears the burden of showing error,” L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96, ¶ 18 , 563 N.W.2d 799 . 2001Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp, 1998 ND 78, ¶ 21 , 576 N.W.2d 505 ; Loran v. Iszler, 373 N.W.2d 870, 874 (N.D.1985). [¶ 8] “On appeal, the trial court is presumed to have acted correctly,” State v. Ash, 526 N.W.2d 473, 483 (N.D.1995), and “the appellant bears the burden of showing error,” L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96, ¶ 18 , 563 N.W.2d 799 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Pierson v. Ray
green
2 sentences2001Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp, 1998 ND 78, ¶ 21 , 576 N.W.2d 505 ; Loran v. Iszler, 373 N.W.2d 870, 874 (N.D.1985). [¶ 8] “On appeal, the trial court is presumed to have acted correctly,” State v. Ash, 526 N.W.2d 473, 483 (N.D.1995), and “the appellant bears the burden of showing error,” L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96, ¶ 18 , 563 N.W.2d 799 . 2001Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Perry Center, Inc. v. Heitkamp, 1998 ND 78, ¶ 21 , 576 N.W.2d 505 ; Loran v. Iszler, 373 N.W.2d 870, 874 (N.D.1985). [¶ 8] “On appeal, the trial court is presumed to have acted correctly,” State v. Ash, 526 N.W.2d 473, 483 (N.D.1995), and “the appellant bears the burden of showing error,” L.C. v. R.P., 1997 ND 96, ¶ 18 , 563 N.W.2d 799 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Westerso v. City of Williston
green
2 sentences1995Westerso v. City of Williston, 77 N.D. 251 , 42 N.W.2d 429 (1950). 1995Westerso v. City of Williston, 77 N.D. 251 , 42 N.W.2d 429 (1950). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Schollmeyer v. Saxowsky green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| City of Minot v. Fisher green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Woller v. Department of Taxation green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Morton County Board of Park Commissioners v. Wetsch green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Zarak v. Hjelle green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Mousel v. Widicker green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Blasl v. Peterson neutral | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Liberty National Bank of Dickinson v. Daly green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Cordova v. Hood green | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.
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.