reasons rule in North Dakota

2023S.M.H., 2021 ND 104, ¶ 8 .

2004The majority opinion, relying on Martin v. Sizemore, 78 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), outlines well the reasons for that requirement. [¶19] It is obvious from the record before us, that the State Board of Medical Examiners and its counsel at the administrative hearing believed no such expert testimony was necessary because the Board itself is the expert.

2004The majority opinion, relying on Martin v. Sizemore, 78 S.W.3d 249 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001), outlines well the reasons for that requirement. [¶ 19] It is obvious from the record before us, that the State Board of Medical Examiners and its counsel at the administrative hearing believed no such expert testimony was necessary because the Board itself is the expert.

1994George v. Celotex Corp., 914 F.2d 26 (2nd Cir.1990); 1 Christopher B.

1991Relying on Kitto v. Minot Park District, 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D.1974), she asserts that because sovereign immunity is a product of judicial origin, this court may abrogate or modify it.

1991Relying on Kitto v. Minot Park District, 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D.1974), she asserts that because sovereign immunity is a product of judicial origin, this court may abrogate or modify it.

1982State v. Helgeson, supra; State v. Moore, supra. Although during oral argument to this Court Hepper’s counsel stated that he expressed dissatisfaction with the manner of jury selection in the judge’s chambers prior to the trial, the record does not disclose that an objection was made to the time lag between the jury selection and the trial.

1982State v. Helgeson, supra; State v. Moore, supra. Although during oral argument to this Court Hepper’s counsel stated that he expressed dissatisfaction with the manner of jury selection in the judge’s chambers prior to the trial, the record does not disclose that an objection was made to the time lag between the jury selection and the trial.

1979State v. Bragg, 221 N.W.2d 793 (N.D.1974); and State v. Haakenson, 213 N.W.2d 394 (N.D.1973).

1979State v. Bragg, 221 N.W.2d 793 (N.D.1974); and State v. Haakenson, 213 N.W.2d 394 (N.D.1973).

1976As is said in the case of Miller v. Schallern, supra [ 8 N.D. 395 , 79 N.W. 865 (1899)]: “ ‘The reasons for this requirement are two-fold: First, to insure the use of the official ballot; next, to identify the ballot in case of contest.

1976As is said in the case of Miller v. Schallern, supra [ 8 N.D. 395 , 79 N.W. 865 (1899)]: “ ‘The reasons for this requirement are two-fold: First, to insure the use of the official ballot; next, to identify the ballot in case of contest.

1967Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526, 529 . *367 Although, for reasons stated in this opinion, we are not permitted to determine from a policy standpoint what the law should be, we commend for reading to those interested in those considerations the recent Minnesota Supreme Court opinion, Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419 , 142 N.W.2d 66 .

1967Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526, 529 . *367 Although, for reasons stated in this opinion, we are not permitted to determine from a policy standpoint what the law should be, we commend for reading to those interested in those considerations the recent Minnesota Supreme Court opinion, Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419 , 142 N.W.2d 66 .

1967Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526, 529 . *367 Although, for reasons stated in this opinion, we are not permitted to determine from a policy standpoint what the law should be, we commend for reading to those interested in those considerations the recent Minnesota Supreme Court opinion, Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419 , 142 N.W.2d 66 .

1967Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526, 529 . *367 Although, for reasons stated in this opinion, we are not permitted to determine from a policy standpoint what the law should be, we commend for reading to those interested in those considerations the recent Minnesota Supreme Court opinion, Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419 , 142 N.W.2d 66 .

1915In this connection, there are two lines of decisions, one holding it a mere bailment and the other a contract of sale. ... [Case cited and digested.] This the court held to be a contract of bailment, and it has been so held by numerous other authorities. [Cases cited.] In such cases, the relation existing between the depositors is that of tenants in common of the mass, each being entitled to so much thereof as his share bears to the whole amount; and the fact that the identity of the mass is continually shifting, by being added to and taken from, does not alter it. [Cases cited.] The reasons f

1903O’Brien v. Miller, 4 N. D. 108 , 60 N. W.