18 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2002 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Okken v. Okkengreen2 sentences1995In reviewing a denial of that motion, as we explained in Hoovestol v. Security State Bank, 479 N.W.2d 854, 861 (N.D.1992), citing Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264, 267 (N.D.1982), we employ the same rigorous standard as the trial court must, that is “whether or not the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, leads to but one conclusion as to the verdict about which there can be no reasonable difference of opinion.” We have also explained the standard of review for a new trial: When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict i 1993Id.; Johnson v. Production Credit Ass'n, supra. The standard for ruling on a motion for j.n.o.v. is stated in Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264, 267 (N.D.1982): “In determining if the evidence is sufficient to create an issue of fact, and hence in determining if judgment n.o.v. should be granted, the trial court must employ a rigorous standard with a view toward preserving verdicts. | 7 | 11 |
Riebe v. Riebegreen2 sentences1993Riebe v. Riebe, 252 N.W.2d 175 (N.D.1977). 1993Riebe v. Riebe, 252 N.W.2d 175 (N.D.1977). | 1 | 8 |
Orke v. Olsongreen2 sentences1999We require a more rigorous standard to change custody, even if for the best interests of the child, then we do in awarding custody in the original proceeding. [¶ 28.] Our prior rhetoric, about which I have voiced some misgivings, Orke v. Olson, 411 N.W.2d 97, 101 (N.D.1987) (VandeWalle, *911 J., concurring in the result), does not forbid a change of custody absent some catastrophic change of circumstances, rather, it increases the burden of proof necessary to a change of custody in the best interest of the child. [¶ 29.] Because I agree that increased burden was met in this instance, I concur 1999We require a more rigorous standard to change custody, even if for the best interests of the child, then we do in awarding custody in the original proceeding. [¶28.] Our prior rhetoric, about which I have voiced some misgivings, Orke v. Olson, 411 N.W.2d 97, 101 (N.D.1987) (VandeWalle, J., concurring in the result), does not forbid a change of custody absent some catastrophic change of circumstances, rather, it increases the burden of proof necessary to a change of custody in the best interest of the child. [¶ 29.] Because I agree that increased burden was met in this instance, I concur in the | 1 | 1 |
Victory Park Apartments, Inc. v. Axelsongreen1 sentence1997Victory Park Apartments, Inc. v. Axelson, 367 N.W.2d 155, 166 (N.D.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Hoovestol v. Security State Bankgreen1 sentence1995In reviewing a denial of that motion, as we explained in Hoovestol v. Security State Bank, 479 N.W.2d 854, 861 (N.D.1992), citing Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264, 267 (N.D.1982), we employ the same rigorous standard as the trial court must, that is “whether or not the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, leads to but one conclusion as to the verdict about which there can be no reasonable difference of opinion.” We have also explained the standard of review for a new trial: When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict i | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Symington v. Mayo
green
2 sentences2002Id. 2002Symington v. Mayo, 1999 ND 48, ¶ 4 , 590 N.W.2d 450 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Diversified Financial Systems Inc. v. Binstock
green
2 sentences1999Diversified Financial Systems, Inc. v. Binstock, 1998 ND 61, ¶ 10 , 575 N.W.2d 677 . 1999Diversified Financial Systems, Inc. v. Binstock, 1998 ND 61, ¶ 10 , 575 N.W.2d 677 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Roberts v. Hail Unlimited, Div. of Intern. Bus.
green
1 sentence1987Bus., supra. In determining if a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted, the trial court must employ a rigorous standard with a view toward preserving verdicts. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.