14 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ell v. Ellgreen2 sentences2012“Although whether there has been a mistake sufficient to support a reformation claim is ordinarily a question of fact, issues of fact become issues of law if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion from the facts.” Id. (citation omitted). [¶ 14] Here, on the basis of David George’s assertions in his affidavit, the Georges argue a mistake was made in drafting the warranty deed. 1984See, Ell v. Ell, 295 N.W.2d 143 (N.D.1980). | 1 | 2 |
Aldinger v. Aldingergreen2 sentences2021See N.D.R.Civ.P. 61 (stating the court must disregard errors that do not affect a party’s substantial rights); see also Aldinger v. Aldinger, 2020 ND 5, ¶¶ 11-12 , 937 N.W.2d 282 (holding error was harmless when party did not explain how the alleged error prejudiced him or affected his substantial rights). 2021See N.D.R.Civ.P. 61 (stating the court must disregard errors that do not affect a party’s substantial rights); see also Aldinger v. Aldinger, 2020 ND 5, ¶¶ 11-12 , 937 N.W.2d 282 (holding error was harmless when party did not explain how the alleged error prejudiced him or affected his substantial rights). | 1 | 1 |
Pear v. Grand Forks Motel Associatesgreen1 sentence2005The Partnership argues the warranty deed does not reflect the parties’ intent, because of fraud or mistake, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the reformation claim. [¶ 11] “The construction of a written contract to determine its legal effect is generally a question of law.” Pear v. Grand Forks Motel Assocs., 553 N.W.2d 774, 779 (N.D.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Diocese of Bismarck Trust v. Ramada, Inc.green1 sentence1998See Diocese of Bismarck Trust v. Ramada, 553 N.W.2d 760, 766 (N.D.1996) (10-year statute of limitations applies to lease affecting interest in real property, and accrual of cause of action is date of discovery of mistake, not date of lease). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried
green
2 sentences2012Although whether there has been a mistake sufficient to support a reformation claim is ordinarily a question of fact, id., issues of fact become issues of law if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion from the facts. 2012As the district court stressed in this case, there is no inconsistency between the contract for deed and the personal representative’s deed that raises an ambiguity about the intention of the parties. [IT 21] Rather, this case is similar to Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 330 , in which this Court affirmed summary judgment dismissing a reformation claim because the warranty deed unambiguously conformed to one of the parties’ version of the facts. | 6 | 2007–2017 |
Saltsman v. Sharp
green
2 sentences2012Saltsman, 2011 ND 172, ¶ 5 , 803 N.W.2d 553 . 2012Saltsman, 2011 ND 172, ¶ 5 , 803 N.W.2d 553 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Interest of E.G.
green
2 sentences2013Here, to prevail on a reformation claim, based upon a mistake of law, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence. ‘Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that leads to a firm belief or conviction the allegations are true.’ In re E.G., 2006 ND 126 , ¶ 7, 716 N.W.2d 469 . 2013Here, to prevail on a reformation claim, based upon a mistake of law, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence. ‘Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that leads to a firm belief or conviction the allegations are true.’ In re E.G., 2006 ND 126 , ¶ 7, 716 N.W.2d 469 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Wehner v. Schroeder
green
2 sentences2009The Wehner decision illustrates the nature of testimoni *804 al evidence a court may admit in a reformation claim. 354 N.W.2d 674 . 2009In Weh-ner, the trial record included testimony from a defendant’s son that “he recalled his father telling him that the Wehners retained 50 percent of the mineral rights to the land at issue.” Id. at 678 . [¶ 18] Although Neil Bartelson repeated Hattie Spitzer’s out-of-court declaration, it was admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 803(3) to show her state of mind and intention at the time the parties agreed to the contract for deed. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Enchanted World Doll Museum v. Buskohl
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sibert v. Kubas
green
1 sentence2002Sibert, 357 N.W.2d at 499 ; Mau, 460 N.W.2d at 134-36 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Mau v. Schwan
green
1 sentence2002Sibert, 357 N.W.2d at 499 ; Mau, 460 N.W.2d at 134-36 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.