date for an evidentiary hearing in North Dakota

18 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2021 2 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Helbling v. Helblinggreen nd · 1995 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2004 2 sentences 2004In O'Neill v. O'Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 3 , 619 N.W.2d 855 (citing Helbling v. Helbling, 541 N.W.2d 443, 445-46 (N.D. 1995)), this Court described a prima facie case: "The plaintiff or moving party generally bears the burden of proof. 2004In O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 3 , 619 N.W.2d 855 (citing Helbling v. Helbling, 541 N.W.2d 443, 445-46 (N.D.1995)), this Court described a prima facie case: “The plaintiff or moving party generally bears the burden of proof.	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
O'Neill v. O'Neill green nd · 2000 2 sentences 2003If a prima facie case is established, the court shall set a date for an evidentiary hearing. [¶ 11] “A party seeking custody modification under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the party brings a prima facie case, by alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if uncontradicted, would support a custody modification in favor of that party.” Hilgers v. Hilgers, 2002 ND 173, ¶ 24 , 653 N.W.2d 79 (citing O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 ). 2003If a prima facie case is established, the court shall set a date for an evidentiary hearing. [¶ 11] “A party seeking custody modification under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the party brings a prima facie case, by alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if uncontradicted, would support a custody modification in favor of that party.” Hilgers v. Hilgers, 2002 ND 173, ¶ 24 , 653 N.W.2d 79 (citing O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 ).	4	2003–2004
Thompson v. Thompson green nd · 2012 2 sentences 2015Jensen, 2013 ND 144, ¶ 8 , 835 N.W.2d 819 ; Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 . 2012N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). “ ‘A prima fa-cie case is a bare minimum and requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a change of custody that could be affirmed if appealed.’ ” Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 (quoting Ehli, 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7 , 789 N.W.2d 560 ).	3	2012–2015
Thompson v. Thompson green nd · 2012 2 sentences 2015Jensen, 2013 ND 144, ¶ 8 , 835 N.W.2d 819 ; Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 . 2012N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). “ ‘A prima fa-cie case is a bare minimum and requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a change of custody that could be affirmed if appealed.’ ” Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 (quoting Ehli, 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7 , 789 N.W.2d 560 ).	3	2012–2015
Lagro v. Lagro green nd · 2005 2 sentences 2008If a prima facie case is established, the court shall set a date for an evidentiary hearing. [¶9] The standard for establishing a prima facie case was outlined in Lagro v. Lagro , 2005 ND 151, ¶ 16 , 703 N.W.2d 322 (citations omitted): A party seeking custody modification under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the party brings a prima facie case, by alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if uncontradicted, would support a custody modification in favor of that party. 2008If a prima facie case is established, the court shall set a date for an evidentiary hearing. [¶9] The standard for establishing a prima facie case was outlined in Lagro v. Lagro , 2005 ND 151, ¶ 16 , 703 N.W.2d 322 (citations omitted): A party seeking custody modification under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the party brings a prima facie case, by alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if uncontradicted, would support a custody modification in favor of that party.	3	2007–2008
Hilgers v. Hilgers green nd · 2002 2 sentences 2003If a prima facie case is established, the court shall set a date for an evidentiary hearing. [¶ 11] “A party seeking custody modification under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the party brings a prima facie case, by alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if uncontradicted, would support a custody modification in favor of that party.” Hilgers v. Hilgers, 2002 ND 173, ¶ 24 , 653 N.W.2d 79 (citing O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 ). 2003If a prima facie case is established, the court shall set a date for an evidentiary hearing. [¶ 11] “A party seeking custody modification under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the party brings a prima facie case, by alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if uncontradicted, would support a custody modification in favor of that party.” Hilgers v. Hilgers, 2002 ND 173, ¶ 24 , 653 N.W.2d 79 (citing O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶5 , 619 N.W.2d 855 ).	3	2003–2003
Ehli v. Joyce green nd · 2010 2 sentences 2012N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). “ ‘A prima fa-cie case is a bare minimum and requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a change of custody that could be affirmed if appealed.’ ” Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 (quoting Ehli, 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7 , 789 N.W.2d 560 ). 2012N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). “‘A prima facie case is a bare minimum and requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a change of custody that could be affirmed if appealed.’” Thompson , 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 (quoting Ehli , 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7 , 789 N.W.2d 560 ).	2	2012–2012
Joyce v. Joyce green nd · 2010 2 sentences 2012N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). “ ‘A prima fa-cie case is a bare minimum and requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a change of custody that could be affirmed if appealed.’ ” Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 (quoting Ehli, 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7 , 789 N.W.2d 560 ). 2012N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4). “‘A prima facie case is a bare minimum and requires facts which, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a change of custody that could be affirmed if appealed.’” Thompson , 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 (quoting Ehli , 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7 , 789 N.W.2d 560 ).	2	2012–2012
Mock v. Mock green nd · 2004 2 sentences 2004Mock, 2004 ND 14, ¶ 5 , 673 N.W.2d 635 . 2004Mock, 2004 ND 14, ¶ 5 , 673 N.W.2d 635 .	2	2004–2004
Klundt v. Benjamin green nd · 2021 2 sentences 2021Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 963 N.W.2d 278 (internal citations omitted). 2021Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 963 N.W.2d 278 (internal citations omitted).	1	2021–2021
Dietz v. Dietz green nd · 2007 2 sentences 2021See N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) (“The court shall set a date for an evidentiary hearing only if a prima facie case is established.”); Dietz v. Dietz, 2007 ND 84, ¶ 19 , 733 N.W.2d 225 (“If a prima facie case is not established as a preliminary matter under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4), a hearing on an interim order pending the proceeding for the motion to change custody is not necessary.”). 2021See N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4) (“The court shall set a date for an evidentiary hearing only if a prima facie case is established.”); Dietz v. Dietz, 2007 ND 84, ¶ 19 , 733 N.W.2d 225 (“If a prima facie case is not established as a preliminary matter under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4), a hearing on an interim order pending the proceeding for the motion to change custody is not necessary.”).	1	2021–2021
Steinbach v. State green nd · 2003 2 sentences 2017Steinbach, 2003 ND 46, ¶ 17 , 658 N.W.2d 355 . [¶ 9] The district court’s order did not explain the basis for granting summary dismissal. 2017Steinbach, 2003 ND 46, ¶ 17 , 658 N.W.2d 355 . [¶ 9] The district court’s order did not explain the basis for granting summary dismissal.	1	2017–2017
Jensen v. Jensen green nd · 2013 2 sentences 2015Jensen, 2013 ND 144, ¶ 8 , 835 N.W.2d 819 ; Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 . 2015Jensen, 2013 ND 144, ¶ 8 , 835 N.W.2d 819 ; Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6 , 809 N.W.2d 331 .	1	2015–2015
Anderson v. Jenkins green nd · 2013 2 sentences 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.	1	2013–2013
Quarne v. Quarne green nd · 1999 2 sentences 2004Volz, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 7 , 667 N.W.2d 637 (citing Lawrence v. Delkamp, 2003 ND 53, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 758 ; Quarne v. Quarne, 1999 ND 188, ¶ 11 , 601 N.W.2d 256 ). 2004Volz, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 7 , 667 N.W.2d 637 (citing Lawrence v. Delkamp, 2003 ND 53, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 758 ; Quarne v. Quarne, 1999 ND 188, ¶ 11 , 601 N.W.2d 256 ).	1	2004–2004
Lawrence v. Delkamp green nd · 2003 2 sentences 2004Volz, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 7 , 667 N.W.2d 637 (citing Lawrence v. Delkamp, 2003 ND 53, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 758 ; Quarne v. Quarne, 1999 ND 188, ¶ 11 , 601 N.W.2d 256 ). 2004Volz, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 7 , 667 N.W.2d 637 (citing Lawrence v. Delkamp, 2003 ND 53, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 758 ; Quarne v. Quarne, 1999 ND 188, ¶ 11 , 601 N.W.2d 256 ).	1	2004–2004
Volz v. Peterson green nd · 2003 2 sentences 2004Volz, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 7 , 667 N.W.2d 637 (citing Lawrence v. Delkamp, 2003 ND 53, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 758 ; Quarne v. Quarne, 1999 ND 188, ¶ 11 , 601 N.W.2d 256 ). 2004Volz, 2003 ND 139, ¶ 7 , 667 N.W.2d 637 (citing Lawrence v. Delkamp, 2003 ND 53, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 758 ; Quarne v. Quarne, 1999 ND 188, ¶ 11 , 601 N.W.2d 256 ).	1	2004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ND § N.D. Cent. Code § 27-05-06 (4) ND § N.D. Cent. Code § 28-27-01 (4) ND § N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.5 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

ND 18 (2000–2021) OH 2 (2004–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check