18 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1910–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vetter v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureaugreen2 sentences2009Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 451, 454 (N.D.1996), “Summary affirmance of an administrative agency decision is appropriate if an appellant’s specifications of error ‘fail to specifically identify any error with any particularity.’ ” [¶ 19] The “specifications of error” in this case contain only boilerplate, with no errors identified with particularity: This appeal is taken upon the grounds that the decision by WSI in its July 20, 2007, Final Order is not in accordance with the law. [¶ 20] These specifications of error are similar to those this Court held insufficient in Vetter : Vetter appealed to the di 2009Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 451, 454 (N.D.1996), “Summary affirmance of an administrative agency decision is appropriate if an appellant’s specifications of error ‘fail to specifically identify any error with any particularity.’ ” [¶ 19] The “specifications of error” in this case contain only boilerplate, with no errors identified with particularity: This appeal is taken upon the grounds that the decision by WSI in its July 20, 2007, Final Order is not in accordance with the law. [¶ 20] These specifications of error are similar to those this Court held insufficient in Vetter : Vetter appealed to the di | 2 | 2 |
Daniels v. Zieglergreen2 sentences2014DOT asserts Hamre did not sufficiently articulate the first and third issues in his petition for judicial review, in accordance with the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4). [¶ 8] For judicial review “[u]n-der N.D.C.C. § 39-20-06, a person appealing to the district court from the Department’s decision to suspend driving privileges must comply with the specification-of-error requirement of N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4).” Daniels v. Ziegler, 2013 ND 157, ¶ 7 , 835 N.W.2d 852 . 2014DOT asserts Hamre did not sufficiently articulate the first and third issues in his petition for judicial review, in accordance with the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4). [¶ 8] For judicial review “[u]n-der N.D.C.C. § 39-20-06, a person appealing to the district court from the Department’s decision to suspend driving privileges must comply with the specification-of-error requirement of N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4).” Daniels v. Ziegler, 2013 ND 157, ¶ 7 , 835 N.W.2d 852 . | 1 | 2 |
Midthun v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKFORCE SAFETY AND INSURANCEgreen2 sentences2013See Dettler, 2004 ND 54, ¶ 17-21 , 676 N.W.2d 799 ; see also Midthun v. North Dakota Workforce Safety and Ins., 2009 ND 22, ¶ 7 , 761 N.W.2d 572 (“Boilerplate specifications of error ... are ripe for dismissal.”) We decline to address the issue and conclude the district court erred in reversing the Department’s decision on a ground that was not sufficiently articulated in Daniels’ specifications of error. 2013See Dettler, 2004 ND 54, ¶ 17-21 , 676 N.W.2d 799 ; see also Midthun v. North Dakota Workforce Safety and Ins., 2009 ND 22, ¶ 7 , 761 N.W.2d 572 (“Boilerplate specifications of error ... are ripe for dismissal.”) We decline to address the issue and conclude the district court erred in reversing the Department’s decision on a ground that was not sufficiently articulated in Daniels’ specifications of error. | 1 | 2 |
Dettler v. Sprynczynatykgreen2 sentences2013See Dettler, 2004 ND 54, ¶ 17-21 , 676 N.W.2d 799 ; see also Midthun v. North Dakota Workforce Safety and Ins., 2009 ND 22, ¶ 7 , 761 N.W.2d 572 (“Boilerplate specifications of error ... are ripe for dismissal.”) We decline to address the issue and conclude the district court erred in reversing the Department’s decision on a ground that was not sufficiently articulated in Daniels’ specifications of error. 2013See Dettler, 2004 ND 54, ¶ 17-21 , 676 N.W.2d 799 ; see also Midthun v. North Dakota Workforce Safety and Ins., 2009 ND 22, ¶ 7 , 761 N.W.2d 572 (“Boilerplate specifications of error ... are ripe for dismissal.”) We decline to address the issue and conclude the district court erred in reversing the Department’s decision on a ground that was not sufficiently articulated in Daniels’ specifications of error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carrollgreen1 sentence1972The transcript shows neither such submission nor such objection with respect to what are asserted in this appeal to be incomplete instructions. “[A]s this specification of error does not contend that the defense counsel did not have a reasonable opportunity to examine the instructions, we believe that Section 29-21-33, North Dakota Century Code, has been complied with and thus the right to raise an objection to the instructions on appeal has been waived.” State v. Carroll, 123 N.W.2d 659, 670 (N.D.1963). | 1 | 1 |
Regent Cooperative Equity Exchange v. Johnston's Fuel Liners, Inc.green1 sentence1970See Regent Cooperative Equity Exchange v. Johnston’s Fuel Liners, Inc., 122 N.W.2d 151 (N.D.1963), Syllabus ¶ 4, wherein we said: “A specification of error is deemed abandoned unless supported by written argument in the brief filed in the Supreme Court.” Let us first consider what type of an account we have, in this case. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rounkles v. Levi
green
2 sentences2020Rounkles v. Levi, 2015 ND 128, ¶ 10 , 863 N.W.2d 910 . [¶8] Jundt failed to raise the issue relating to the Report and Notice in the specifications of error in his appeal to the district court. 2020Rounkles v. Levi, 2015 ND 128, ¶ 10 , 863 N.W.2d 910 . [¶8] Jundt failed to raise the issue relating to the Report and Notice in the specifications of error in his appeal to the district court. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Smith v. Loos
green
2 sentences1970The leading case which he cites in support of his position is that of Smith v. Loos, 78 N.M. 339 , 431 P.2d 72 (1967), certiorari denied August 25, 1967. 1970The leading case which he cites in support of his position is that of Smith v. Loos, 78 N.M. 339 , 431 P.2d 72 (1967), certiorari denied August 25, 1967. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Grenz v. Werre
green
1 sentence1970Gleson v. Thompson, supra; Grenz v. Werre, supra. The trial court did not specifically rule on this alleged specification of error, but held that all of the other specifications of error alleged were without merit. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Smith v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation
neutral
1 sentence1966We have held in a great many cases that assignments of error not argued in the brief or orally are deemed abandoned and not required to be considered on appeal. *407 Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc., N.D., 140 N.W.2d 349 ; Julson v. Loyal Order of Moose, Number 822, N.D., 140 N.W.2d 39 ; Smith v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, N.D., 136 N.W.2d 483 ; Geck v. Wentz, N.D., 133 N.W.2d 849 , and many more cases which may be found under Appeal and Error, in West's Digests. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Geck v. Wentz
green
1 sentence1966We have held in a great many cases that assignments of error not argued in the brief or orally are deemed abandoned and not required to be considered on appeal. *407 Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc., N.D., 140 N.W.2d 349 ; Julson v. Loyal Order of Moose, Number 822, N.D., 140 N.W.2d 39 ; Smith v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, N.D., 136 N.W.2d 483 ; Geck v. Wentz, N.D., 133 N.W.2d 849 , and many more cases which may be found under Appeal and Error, in West's Digests. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Julson v. Loyal Order of Moose Number 822
green
1 sentence1966We have held in a great many cases that assignments of error not argued in the brief or orally are deemed abandoned and not required to be considered on appeal. *407 Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc., N.D., 140 N.W.2d 349 ; Julson v. Loyal Order of Moose, Number 822, N.D., 140 N.W.2d 39 ; Smith v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, N.D., 136 N.W.2d 483 ; Geck v. Wentz, N.D., 133 N.W.2d 849 , and many more cases which may be found under Appeal and Error, in West's Digests. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc.
green
1 sentence1966We have held in a great many cases that assignments of error not argued in the brief or orally are deemed abandoned and not required to be considered on appeal. *407 Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc., N.D., 140 N.W.2d 349 ; Julson v. Loyal Order of Moose, Number 822, N.D., 140 N.W.2d 39 ; Smith v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, N.D., 136 N.W.2d 483 ; Geck v. Wentz, N.D., 133 N.W.2d 849 , and many more cases which may be found under Appeal and Error, in West's Digests. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Mevorah v. Goodman
neutral
1 sentence1963Rule 8(B) of the Supreme Court of North Dakota, 76 N.D. xix ; Mevorah v. Goodman, N.D., 68 N.W.2d 469 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Hanson v. Carlblom
green
1 sentence1946Section 28-1206 of the Revised Code provides: “An issue of fact in an action for the recovery of money only . . . must be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial is waived, . . . .” In Hanson v. Carlblom, 13 ND 361 , 100 NW 1084 , we hold: “A statement of case which shows that a law action triable to a jury as a matter of strict legal right was tried to the court without a jury, . . . , over defendant’s objection, and a jury was not waived, presents a mistrial, which requires a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.” In fact, so important is the right of the defendant to a trial by jury in thi | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Gorthy v. Jarvis
green
1 sentence1946Section 28-1206 of the Revised Code provides: “An issue of fact in an action for the recovery of money only . . . must be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial is waived, . . . .” In Hanson v. Carlblom, 13 ND 361 , 100 NW 1084 , we hold: “A statement of case which shows that a law action triable to a jury as a matter of strict legal right was tried to the court without a jury, . . . , over defendant’s objection, and a jury was not waived, presents a mistrial, which requires a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.” In fact, so important is the right of the defendant to a trial by jury in thi | 1 | 1946–1946 |
State v. Colohan
green
1 sentence1939Such matters are settled in the case of State v. Colohan, ante, 316, 286 N. W. 888 , decided at this term, and need not be considered here. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Stockwell v. Haigh
neutral
2 sentences1935The minority of the court is of the opinion that the specification of error No. 3 shows, the defendant intended to invoke the jurisdiction of the court; and therefore the rule set forth in Stockwell v. Haigh, 23 N. D. 54 , 135 N. W. 764 , and State v. Shortridge, 54 N. D. 779, 787 , 211 N. W 336 applies. 1935The minority of the court is of the opinion that the specification of error No. 3 shows, the defendant intended to invoke the jurisdiction of the court; and therefore the rule set forth in Stockwell v. Haigh, 23 N. D. 54 , 135 N. W. 764 , and State v. Shortridge, 54 N. D. 779, 787 , 211 N. W 336 applies. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
State v. Shortridge
neutral
1 sentence1935The minority of the court is of the opinion that the specification of error No. 3 shows, the defendant intended to invoke the jurisdiction of the court; and therefore the rule set forth in Stockwell v. Haigh, 23 N. D. 54 , 135 N. W. 764 , and State v. Shortridge, 54 N. D. 779, 787 , 211 N. W 336 applies. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Farmers State Bank of Richardton v. Walth
green
1 sentence1933Co. 63 N. D. 332 , 248 N. W. 268, 272 , where the sole specification of error was the refusal, of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, we said: “Were the question one of weight of the evidence, or the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court in granting a new trial because of the unsatisfactory state of the evidence, it would be an entirely different matter.” But, in the present case, there is also the question of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Taylor v. Minneapolis, Saint Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1933Co. 63 N. D. 332 , 248 N. W. 268, 272 , where the sole specification of error was the refusal, of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, we said: “Were the question one of weight of the evidence, or the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court in granting a new trial because of the unsatisfactory state of the evidence, it would be an entirely different matter.” But, in the present case, there is also the question of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
McLaughlin v. Thompson
neutral
2 sentences1910McLaughlin v. Thompson, 19 N. D. 34 , 120 N. W. 554 . 1910McLaughlin v. Thompson, 19 N. D. 34 , 120 N. W. 554 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Folsom v. Norton
neutral
1 sentence1910Folsom v. Norton (N. D.) 125 N. W. 310 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.