interpretation rule (North Dakota) · Go Syfert
← North Dakota issues

interpretation rule in North Dakota

15 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2023 1 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Moen v. Thomasgreen
nd · 2001 · cited in 3 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003See Moen v. Thomas, 2001 ND 110, ¶ 13 , 628 N.W.2d 325 (citing Stormon v. Weiss, 65 N.W.2d 475, 520 (N.D. 1954)).

2003See Moen v. Thomas, 2001 ND 110, ¶ 13 , 628 N.W.2d 325 (citing Stormon v. Weiss, 65 N.W.2d 475, 520 (N.D. 1954)).

33
Stormon v. Weissgreen
nd · 1954 · cited in 3 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003See Moen v. Thomas , 2001 ND 110, ¶ 13 , 628 N.W.2d 325 (citing Stormon v. Weiss , 65 N.W.2d 475, 520 (N.D. 1954)).

2003See Moen v. Thomas, 2001 ND 110, ¶ 13 , 628 N.W.2d 325 (citing Stormon v. Weiss, 65 N.W.2d 475, 520 (N.D. 1954)).

33
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Leonardgreen
or · 1989 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003As the court stated in In re Conduct of Leonard, 308 Or. 560 , 784 P.2d 95, 100 (1989), expert witness testimony under these circumstances “amount[s] to nothing more than an oral brief as to why one particular construction of the governing disciplinary rule would not be violated by a particular hypothetical set of facts.

2003As the court stated in In re Conduct of Leonard, 308 Or. 560 , 784 P.2d 95, 100 (1989), expert witness testimony under these circumstances “amount[s] to nothing more than an oral brief as to why one particular construction of the governing disciplinary rule would not be violated by a particular hypothetical set of facts.

22
Aho v. Maragosgreen
nd · 1998 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See generally, Aho v. Maragos, 1998 ND 107 , 579 N.W.2d 165 .

2006See generally, Aho v. Maragos, 1998 ND 107 , 579 N.W.2d 165 .

11
St. Pierre v. Grondingreen
me · 1986 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000Pierre v. Grondin, 513 A.2d 1368, 1370 (Maine 1986) (resolving ambiguities against the grantor and in favor of the grantee).

11
Windell v. Millergreen
indctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000N.D.C.C. § 47-09-13; Terrill v. Tuckness, 985 S.W.2d 97, 106 (Tex.Ct.App.1998) (discussing an interpretation presumption in favor of the grantee and against the drafter); Windell v. Miller, 687 N.E.2d 585, 589 (Ind.App.1997) (construing ambiguities in the grantee’s favor when the deed was prepared by the grant- or); St.

11
Terrill v. Tucknessgreen
texapp · 1998 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000N.D.C.C. § 47-09-13; Terrill v. Tuckness, 985 S.W.2d 97, 106 (Tex.Ct.App.1998) (discussing an interpretation presumption in favor of the grantee and against the drafter); Windell v. Miller, 687 N.E.2d 585, 589 (Ind.App.1997) (construing ambiguities in the grantee’s favor when the deed was prepared by the grant- or); St.

11
Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureaugreen
nd · 1985 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992See Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71 (N.D.1985); Steele v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 273 N.W.2d 692 (N.D.1978).

1992See Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71 (N.D.1985); Steele v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 273 N.W.2d 692 (N.D.1978).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Andrews v. O'HEARN green
nd · 1986
2 sentences

2023Id. at 722 .

1986Andrews v. O’Hearn, M.D., 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1986).

21986–2023
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance green
wva · 1993
1 sentence

2001Id. [3] The special concurrence of Justice Neumann concludes this interpretation of the exception "completely gobbles up the exclusion, making it meaningless." That is not true.

12001–2001
Steele v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau green
nd · 1978
2 sentences

1992See Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71 (N.D.1985); Steele v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 273 N.W.2d 692 (N.D.1978).

1992See Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71 (N.D.1985); Steele v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 273 N.W.2d 692 (N.D.1978).

11992–1992
Metry, Metry, Sanom & Ashare v. Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Ass'n green
mich · 1978
1 sentence

1992The Supreme Court of Michigan explains the policy underlying this interpretation of a covered claim under these statutes, in Metry, supra, 267 N.W.2d at 697 : “We conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly, found that attorney fees for services rendered prior to insolvency are not covered claims.

11992–1992
Sandmann v. Petron green
minn · 1987
2 sentences

1990Such barren interpretations of rules promote more uncertainty and litigation rather than less. 404 N.W.2d at 803 .

1990Such barren interpretations of rules promote more uncertainty and litigation rather than less. 404 N.W.2d at 803 .

11990–1990
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. green
scotus · 1948
2 sentences

1974United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 346 , 68 S. Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).

1974United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 346 , 68 S. Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).

11974–1974
In Re Estate of Elmer green
nd · 1973
1 sentence

1974Deeming the interpretation of that rule by the Federal courts as highly persuasive, this Court in In re Estate of Elmer, 210 N.W.2d 815 (N.D.1973) stated that it is not the function of the appellate court “to decide factual issues de novo” and approved the Federal definitive test that, A finding is “clearly erroneous” only when, although there is some evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

11974–1974
Hobbs v. Martin Marietta Company green
iowa · 1964
2 sentences

1974In Hobbs v. Martin Marietta Company, 257 Iowa 124 , 131 N.W.2d 772 (1964), the defendant company sent the summons and complaint, that instituted an action for personal injuries that resulted from an explosion, to its insurance carrier by messenger.

1974In Hobbs v. Martin Marietta Company, 257 Iowa 124 , 131 N.W.2d 772 (1964), the defendant company sent the summons and complaint, that instituted an action for personal injuries that resulted from an explosion, to its insurance carrier by messenger.

11974–1974

Where else courts name it

TX 117 (1913–2025) IL 109 (1877–2026) CA 93 (1912–2026) UT 83 (1988–2026) FL 81 (1959–2025) MI 68 (1949–2025) OR 67 (1893–2026) PA 65 (1897–2025) NY 48 (1896–2022) CO 45 (1952–2026) OH 45 (1926–2025) IA 37 (1941–2024) MN 37 (1967–2026) WI 35 (1923–2024) AR 35 (1929–2025) WA 34 (1918–2019) MD 34 (1943–2023) MO 32 (1899–2020) AZ 31 (1946–2024) CT 29 (1955–2023) NJ 28 (1869–2020) HI 28 (1978–2022) MA 28 (1863–2026) IN 26 (1941–2023) WV 25 (1913–2024) MS 22 (1895–2023) LA 21 (1937–2019) NC 20 (1912–2020) AL 19 (1885–2008) NM 18 (1939–2019) GA 16 (1909–2024) MT 16 (1890–2023) TN 15 (1942–2022) ND 15 (1974–2023) DC 14 (1975–2024) VT 14 (1915–2023) AK 12 (1975–2018) RI 10 (1968–2018) SD 10 (1897–2015) VA 10 (1962–2026) ID 10 (1975–2024) KS 10 (1904–2023) NH 7 (1978–2021) OK 7 (1919–2011) DE 7 (1920–2015) WY 7 (1933–2009) NE 7 (1922–2013) NV 6 (1971–2018) KY 5 (1917–2009) ME 5 (1958–2020) SC 4 (1936–2009) PR 4 (1930–1967)

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