Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2003The Bureau’s brief was clearly late and violated the court’s order. [¶ 10] “[Ljitigants have an unflagging duty to comply with clearly communicated case-management orders.” Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Rueckert v. Rueckertgreen1 sentence2003Thus, the Bureau has recognized it did not file its brief until August 5, 2002, although the court’s order required it to be filed by August 2, 2002. [¶ 9] As this Court said in Rueckert v. Rueckert, 499 N.W.2d 863, 866 (N.D.1993), “service by mail ... is complete upon mailing,” but “filing ... requires actual receipt.” The Bureau’s brief was mailed on August 2, 2002, the day it was required by the court’s order to be filed.. | 1 | 1 |
Lamplighter Lounge, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Heitkampgreen2 sentences1997This case did not involve a final agency order rendered by an agency acting in an adjudicatory, quasi-judicial capacity, see Lamplighter Lounge, Inc. v. State, 523 N.W.2d 73, 74-75 (N.D.1994), and the district court correctly ruled no showing of an absence of substantial justification was necessary. [¶ 40] The Legislature clearly evidenced its intention attorney fees and costs could be awarded to a nonadministrative party in some instances where the court simply “finds in favor of that party.” The Bureau’s motion for leave to pursue discovery and the resulting request for attorney fees were cl 1997This case did not involve a final agency order rendered by an agency acting in an adjudicatory, quasi-judicial capacity, see Lamplighter Lounge, Inc. v. State, 523 N.W.2d 73, 74-75 (N.D.1994), and the district court correctly ruled no showing of an absence of substantial justification was necessary. [¶ 40] The Legislature clearly evidenced its intention attorney fees and costs could be awarded to a nonadministrative party in some instances where the court simply "finds in favor of that party." The Bureau's motion for leave to pursue discovery and the resulting request for attorney fees were cl | 1 | 1 |
Mini Mart, Inc. v. City of Minotgreen2 sentences1997Compare Mini Mart, Inc. v. City of Minot, 347 N.W.2d 131, 137 (N.D.1984) (record of city council proceedings did not require transcribed and sworn testimony). [¶ 17] Under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-19.1(4), we are directed to decide whether the Bureau’s rule on maximum hourly rates and fee caps is an arbitrary or capricious application of authority granted by statute. 1997Compare Mini Mart, Inc. v. City of Minot, 347 N.W.2d 131, 137 (N.D.1984) (record of city council proceedings did not require transcribed and sworn testimony). *773 [¶ 17] Under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-19.1(4), we are directed to decide whether the Bureau's rule on maximum hourly rates and fee caps is an arbitrary or capricious application of authority granted by statute. | 1 | 1 |
Interest of Kggreen2 sentences1997See Interest of K.G., 551 N.W.2d 554, 556 (N.D. 1996). 1997See Interest of KG., 551 N.W.2d 554, 556 (N.D. 1996). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hayden v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1996I recognize that the opinion of then Chief Justice Erickstad in Hayden v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 447 N.W.2d 489 (N.D.1989), which I joined, is not a guiding precedent because it did not have a majority of the court. 1996I recognize that the opinion of then Chief Justice Erickstad in Hayden v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 447 N.W.2d 489 (N.D.1989), which I joined, is not a guiding precedent because it did not have a majority of the court. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Flink v. N.D. Workers Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1999Bruns v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 116, ¶ 7 , 595 N.W.2d 298 ; Flink v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1998 ND 11, ¶ 8 , 574 N.W.2d 784 . 1999Bruns v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 116, ¶ 7 , 595 N.W.2d 298 ; Flink v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1998 ND 11, ¶ 8 , 574 N.W.2d 784 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Bruns v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1999Bruns v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 116, ¶ 7 , 595 N.W.2d 298 ; Flink v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1998 ND 11, ¶ 8 , 574 N.W.2d 784 . 1999Bruns v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 116, ¶ 7 , 595 N.W.2d 298 ; Flink v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1998 ND 11, ¶ 8 , 574 N.W.2d 784 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Flink v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1999Bruns v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 116, ¶ 7 , 595 N.W.2d 298 ; Flink v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1998 ND 11, ¶ 8 , 574 N.W.2d 784 . 1999Bruns v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 116, ¶ 7 , 595 N.W.2d 298 ; Flink v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1998 ND 11, ¶ 8 , 574 N.W.2d 784 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Theige v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1998Therefore, there is no basis for suspension of Ali’s benefits under NDCC 65-05-28(4), and the Bureau’s decision is not in accordance with the law. [¶ 20] Still, the Bureau asserts its decision is supported by Theige v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1997 ND 160 , 567 N.W.2d 334 . 1998Therefore, there is no basis for suspension of Ali’s benefits under NDCC 65-05-28(4), and the Bureau’s decision is not in accordance with the law. [¶ 20] Still, the Bureau asserts its decision is supported by Theige v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1997 ND 160 , 567 N.W.2d 334 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Nemec v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 238-39 . [¶ 11] The Bureau specifically explained why it found Dr. Wood’s opinion was entitled to greater weight than Dr. Root’s opinion. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Little v. Tracy
green
1 sentence1998However, the Bureau also said in a footnote (emphasis ours): At the time the Little [v. Tracy, 497 N.W.2d 700 (N.D.1993)] case was decided, arbitration was a voluntary election by the claimant (but not the employer) and available for all issues including compensability. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Wherry v. North Dakota State Hospital
green
1 sentence1994“An adequate explanation for the Bureau’s rejection of evidence favorable to the claimant may be provided in the Bureau’s analysis of why it accepted contrary evidence.” Wherry, 498 N.W.2d at 141 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kopp v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
green
1 sentence1993Kopp, supra. The Bureau’s rationale for adopting Dr. Fisher’s opinion and rejecting Dr. Hauge’s opinion provided an adequate explanation for its decision. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kuklok v. North Dakota Workers' Compensation Bureau
green
1 sentence1993Kuklok, supra. An adequate explanation for the Bureau’s rejection of evidence favorable to the claimant may be provided in the Bureau’s analysis of why it accepted contrary evidence. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State Ex Rel. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau v. Broadway Investment Co.
neutral
1 sentence1978State for Benefit of, etc., Workmen’s Compensation Bureau v. Broadway Investment Co., 85 N.W.2d 251 (N.D.1957). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.