fact at issue rule in North Dakota

2019"A prima facie case requires only enough evidence to allow the factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party's favor." Kartes v. Kartes , 2013 ND 106 , ¶ 9, 831 N.W.2d 731 (citing Sweeney , at ¶ 5 ).

2019"A prima facie case requires only enough evidence to allow the factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party's favor." Kartes v. Kartes , 2013 ND 106 , ¶ 9, 831 N.W.2d 731 (citing Sweeney , at ¶ 5 ).

2022A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” It is a bare minimum. 2008 ND 26, ¶ 6 , 745 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Lagro v. Lagro, 2005 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 322 , overruled on other grounds by Green v. Green, 2009 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 772 N.W.2d 612 ).

2022A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” It is a bare minimum. 2008 ND 26, ¶ 6 , 745 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Lagro v. Lagro, 2005 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 322 , overruled on other grounds by Green v. Green, 2009 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 772 N.W.2d 612 ).

2022A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” It is a bare minimum. 2008 ND 26, ¶ 6 , 745 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Lagro v. Lagro, 2005 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 322 , overruled on other grounds by Green v. Green, 2009 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 772 N.W.2d 612 ).

2022A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” It is a bare minimum. 2008 ND 26, ¶ 6 , 745 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Lagro v. Lagro, 2005 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 322 , overruled on other grounds by Green v. Green, 2009 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 772 N.W.2d 612 ).

2022A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” It is a bare minimum. 2008 ND 26, ¶ 6 , 745 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Lagro v. Lagro, 2005 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 322 , overruled on other grounds by Green v. Green, 2009 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 772 N.W.2d 612 ).

2022A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” It is a bare minimum. 2008 ND 26, ¶ 6 , 745 N.W.2d 362 (quoting Lagro v. Lagro, 2005 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 322 , overruled on other grounds by Green v. Green, 2009 ND 162, ¶ 5 , 772 N.W.2d 612 ).

2013“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 . [¶ 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.

2013“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 . [¶ 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.

2008A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” Id. (citations omitted). [¶10] As noted in this Court’s decision in Lausen v. Hertz , 2006 ND 101, ¶ 7 , 714 N.W.2d 57 , citing Lagro , there is disagreement amongst the Court regarding whether a denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a change of custody should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard or should be reviewed as a matter of law.

2008A prima facie case is only “enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” Id. (citations omitted). [¶10] As noted in this Court’s decision in Lausen v. Hertz , 2006 ND 101, ¶ 7 , 714 N.W.2d 57 , citing Lagro , there is disagreement amongst the Court regarding whether a denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a change of custody should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard or should be reviewed as a matter of law.

2026“Whether an alleged change in circumstance is material depends upon the particularities of a given case.” Id. (quoting Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 2021 ND 183, ¶ 10 , 965 N.W.2d 427 ). [¶8] We have explained: 2 [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.

2026“Whether an alleged change in circumstance is material depends upon the particularities of a given case.” Id. (quoting Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 2021 ND 183, ¶ 10 , 965 N.W.2d 427 ). [¶8] We have explained: 2 [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.

2013“Allegations alone do not establish a prima facie case, and affidavits supporting the motion for modification must include competent information, which usually requires the affiant have first-hand knowledge.” Schumacker , 2011 ND 75, ¶ 7 , 796 N.W.2d 636 .

2013“Allegations alone do not establish a prima facie case, and affidavits supporting the motion for modification must include competent information, which usually requires the affiant have first-hand knowledge.” Schumacker, 2011 ND 75, ¶ 7 , 796 N.W.2d 636 .

2013“Allegations alone do not establish a prima facie case, and affidavits supporting the motion for modification must include competent information, which usually requires the affiant have first-hand knowledge.” Schumacker , 2011 ND 75, ¶ 7 , 796 N.W.2d 636 .

2013“Allegations alone do not establish a prima facie case, and affidavits supporting the motion for modification must include competent information, which usually requires the affiant have first-hand knowledge.” Schumacker, 2011 ND 75, ¶ 7 , 796 N.W.2d 636 .

2026“Whether an alleged change in circumstance is material depends upon the particularities of a given case.” Id. (quoting Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 2021 ND 183, ¶ 10 , 965 N.W.2d 427 ). [¶8] We have explained: 2 [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.

2023Allegations alone, however, do not establish a prima facie case, and affidavits must include competent information, which usually requires the affiant to have first-hand knowledge. ‘Affidavits are not competent if they fail to show a basis for actual personal knowledge, or if they state conclusions without the support of evidentiary facts.’” Heidt v. Heidt, 2019 ND 45, ¶ 8 , 923 N.W.2d 530 (cleaned up). [¶6] A party seeking to modify an order establishing primary residential responsibility must present a prima facie case showing modification is necessary to serve the children’s best interests.

2023Allegations alone, however, do not establish a prima facie case, and affidavits must include competent information, which usually requires the affiant to have first-hand knowledge. ‘Affidavits are not competent if they fail to show a basis for actual personal knowledge, or if they state conclusions without the support of evidentiary facts.’” Heidt v. Heidt, 2019 ND 45, ¶ 8 , 923 N.W.2d 530 (cleaned up). [¶6] A party seeking to modify an order establishing primary residential responsibility must present a prima facie case showing modification is necessary to serve the children’s best interests.

2022Stoddard v. Singer, 2021 ND 23, ¶ 23 , 954 N.W.2d 696 . [¶13] A “prima facie case” under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) requires facts showing there could be a change in custody if proven at an evidentiary hearing, and requires only enough evidence “to permit a factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party’s favor.” Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 2021 ND 183, ¶ 8 , 965 N.W.2d 427 (quoting Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 963 N.W.2d 278 ).

2022Stoddard v. Singer, 2021 ND 23, ¶ 23 , 954 N.W.2d 696 . [¶13] A “prima facie case” under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) requires facts showing there could be a change in custody if proven at an evidentiary hearing, and requires only enough evidence “to permit a factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party’s favor.” Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 2021 ND 183, ¶ 8 , 965 N.W.2d 427 (quoting Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 963 N.W.2d 278 ).

2022Stoddard v. Singer, 2021 ND 23, ¶ 23 , 954 N.W.2d 696 . [¶13] A “prima facie case” under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) requires facts showing there could be a change in custody if proven at an evidentiary hearing, and requires only enough evidence “to permit a factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party’s favor.” Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 2021 ND 183, ¶ 8 , 965 N.W.2d 427 (quoting Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 963 N.W.2d 278 ).

2022Stoddard v. Singer, 2021 ND 23, ¶ 23 , 954 N.W.2d 696 . [¶13] A “prima facie case” under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) requires facts showing there could be a change in custody if proven at an evidentiary hearing, and requires only enough evidence “to permit a factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party’s favor.” Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 2021 ND 183, ¶ 8 , 965 N.W.2d 427 (quoting Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 963 N.W.2d 278 ).

2013It is “a bare minimum and requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a *236 change of [residential responsibility] that could be affirmed if appealed.” Id. (quoting Ehli v. Joyce, 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7 , 789 N.W.2d 560 ).

2013See Ensign, 2004 ND 56, ¶ 11 , 676 N.W.2d 786 (“[P]laintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and if the court relies only on pleadings and affidavits, the court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”); see also Rodenburg, 2001 ND 139, ¶ 17 , 632 N.W.2d 407 ; cf. Sweeney v. Kirby, 2013 ND 9, ¶5 , 826 N.W.2d 330 (“Prima facie case” is “only ‘enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.’ It is a bare minimum.”); In re Estate of Clemets

2013“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 . [¶ 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.

2013“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 . [¶ 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.

2013It is “a bare minimum and requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a *236 change of [residential responsibility] that could be affirmed if appealed.” Id. (quoting Ehli v. Joyce, 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7 , 789 N.W.2d 560 ).

2013See Ensign, 2004 ND 56, ¶ 11 , 676 N.W.2d 786 (“[P]laintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and if the court relies only on pleadings and affidavits, the court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”); see also Rodenburg, 2001 ND 139, ¶ 17 , 632 N.W.2d 407 ; cf. Sweeney v. Kirby, 2013 ND 9, ¶5 , 826 N.W.2d 330 (“Prima facie case” is “only ‘enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.’ It is a bare minimum.”); In re Estate of Clemets

2013Anderson v. Jenkins, 2013 ND 167, ¶ 8 , 837 N.W.2d 374 ; N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). “[A] prima fa-cie case requires only enough evidence to permit a factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party’s favor.” Anderson , at ¶ 9.

2013Anderson v. Jenkins, 2013 ND 167, ¶ 8 , 837 N.W.2d 374 ; N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). “[A] prima fa-cie case requires only enough evidence to permit a factfinder to infer the fact at issue and rule in the moving party’s favor.” Anderson , at ¶ 9.