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.
11 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1901–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ell v. Ellgreen1 sentence1997Under Ell , in a reformation action any parol evidence which tends to show a mistake or the parties’ true intent is admissible. [¶ 14] D.T.L. argues Fargo was not entitled to reformation of the quit claim deed *277 because it failed to prove a mistake by clear and convincing evidence. [¶ 15] In Ell, 295 N.W.2d at 150 (emphasis in original), we also said: The burden of proof rests on the party who seeks reformation to prove that the written instrument does not fully or truly state the agreement that the parties intended to make_ Further, ... “[P]arol evidence of an alleged mutual mistake as a b | 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 372543
green
1 sentence2007“The purpose of this salutary requirement is to protect the nonparty members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights” as well as to minimize conflicts that “may arise between the attorney and the class, between the named plaintiffs and the absentees, and between various subclasses.” Id. at 1327-28 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Blackman v. Folsom
green
1 sentence1980Blackman v. Folsom, 200 N.W.2d 542 (Iowa 1972). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ferderer v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1964Co., 77 N.D. 169 , 42 N.W.2d 216 ; Froh v. Hein, et al., 76 N.D. 701 , 39 N.W.2d 11 ; Hoffer v. Burd, et al., 78 N.D. 278 , 49 N.W.2d 282 . 1964Co., 77 N.D. 169 , 42 N.W.2d 216 ; Froh v. Hein, et al., 76 N.D. 701 , 39 N.W.2d 11 ; Hoffer v. Burd, et al., 78 N.D. 278 , 49 N.W.2d 282 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Hoffer v. Burd
green
2 sentences1964Co., 77 N.D. 169 , 42 N.W.2d 216 ; Froh v. Hein, et al., 76 N.D. 701 , 39 N.W.2d 11 ; Hoffer v. Burd, et al., 78 N.D. 278 , 49 N.W.2d 282 . 1964Co., 77 N.D. 169 , 42 N.W.2d 216 ; Froh v. Hein, et al., 76 N.D. 701 , 39 N.W.2d 11 ; Hoffer v. Burd, et al., 78 N.D. 278 , 49 N.W.2d 282 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Froh v. Hein
green
2 sentences1964Co., 77 N.D. 169 , 42 N.W.2d 216 ; Froh v. Hein, et al., 76 N.D. 701 , 39 N.W.2d 11 ; Hoffer v. Burd, et al., 78 N.D. 278 , 49 N.W.2d 282 . 1964Co., 77 N.D. 169 , 42 N.W.2d 216 ; Froh v. Hein, et al., 76 N.D. 701 , 39 N.W.2d 11 ; Hoffer v. Burd, et al., 78 N.D. 278 , 49 N.W.2d 282 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Durso v. A. D. Cozzolino, Inc.
green
2 sentences1962In Turner v. Hall’s Administratrix, (Ky) 252 S.W.2d 30 it was said: “Family Purpose Doctrine is a humanitarian one designed for the protection of the public generally, and resulting from recognition of the fact that in the vast majority of instances an infant has not sufficient property in his own right to indemnify one who may suffer from his negligent act.” In King v. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217 , 204 S.W. 296 , L.R.A.1918F, 293, it was said: “We think the practical administration of justice between the parties is more the duty of the court than the preservation of some esoteric theory concerning 1962In Turner v. Hall’s Administratrix, (Ky) 252 S.W.2d 30 it was said: “Family Purpose Doctrine is a humanitarian one designed for the protection of the public generally, and resulting from recognition of the fact that in the vast majority of instances an infant has not sufficient property in his own right to indemnify one who may suffer from his negligent act.” In King v. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217 , 204 S.W. 296 , L.R.A.1918F, 293, it was said: “We think the practical administration of justice between the parties is more the duty of the court than the preservation of some esoteric theory concerning | 1 | 1962–1962 |
King v. Smythe
green
1 sentence1962In Turner v. Hall’s Administratrix, (Ky) 252 S.W.2d 30 it was said: “Family Purpose Doctrine is a humanitarian one designed for the protection of the public generally, and resulting from recognition of the fact that in the vast majority of instances an infant has not sufficient property in his own right to indemnify one who may suffer from his negligent act.” In King v. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217 , 204 S.W. 296 , L.R.A.1918F, 293, it was said: “We think the practical administration of justice between the parties is more the duty of the court than the preservation of some esoteric theory concerning | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Turner v. Hall's Adm'x
green
1 sentence1962In Turner v. Hall’s Administratrix, (Ky) 252 S.W.2d 30 it was said: “Family Purpose Doctrine is a humanitarian one designed for the protection of the public generally, and resulting from recognition of the fact that in the vast majority of instances an infant has not sufficient property in his own right to indemnify one who may suffer from his negligent act.” In King v. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217 , 204 S.W. 296 , L.R.A.1918F, 293, it was said: “We think the practical administration of justice between the parties is more the duty of the court than the preservation of some esoteric theory concerning | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Pollard v. Wegener
green
1 sentence1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Damp v. Town of Dane
green
1 sentence1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Butler v. Wagner
green
1 sentence1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Mathie v. McIntosh
neutral
1 sentence1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Territory of Dakota v. O'Hare
green
2 sentences1956In Territory v. O’Hare, supra, 1 N.D. at page 45 , 44 N.W. at page 1008 , it was said: “We hold that the right of cross-examination as to outside matters of fact, which affect the general character of the witness, and tend to degrade him, and affect his credibility, is within the limits of a sound judicial discretion, a salutary rule.” In State v. Kent (State v. Pancoast), 5 N.D. 516, 557 , 67 N.W. 1052, 1063 , 35 L.R.A. 518 , it was said, “Where a cross-examiner seeks to impair the credibility of a witness by proof of collateral crimes, he should be confined to specific acts. 1956In Territory v. O’Hare, supra, 1 N.D. at page 45 , 44 N.W. at page 1008 , it was said: “We hold that the right of cross-examination as to outside matters of fact, which affect the general character of the witness, and tend to degrade him, and affect his credibility, is within the limits of a sound judicial discretion, a salutary rule.” In State v. Kent (State v. Pancoast), 5 N.D. 516, 557 , 67 N.W. 1052, 1063 , 35 L.R.A. 518 , it was said, “Where a cross-examiner seeks to impair the credibility of a witness by proof of collateral crimes, he should be confined to specific acts. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. Rozum
green
2 sentences1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . 1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. Ekanger
neutral
2 sentences1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . 1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. Kent
green
2 sentences1956In Territory v. O’Hare, supra, 1 N.D. at page 45 , 44 N.W. at page 1008 , it was said: “We hold that the right of cross-examination as to outside matters of fact, which affect the general character of the witness, and tend to degrade him, and affect his credibility, is within the limits of a sound judicial discretion, a salutary rule.” In State v. Kent (State v. Pancoast), 5 N.D. 516, 557 , 67 N.W. 1052, 1063 , 35 L.R.A. 518 , it was said, “Where a cross-examiner seeks to impair the credibility of a witness by proof of collateral crimes, he should be confined to specific acts. 1956In Territory v. O’Hare, supra, 1 N.D. at page 45 , 44 N.W. at page 1008 , it was said: “We hold that the right of cross-examination as to outside matters of fact, which affect the general character of the witness, and tend to degrade him, and affect his credibility, is within the limits of a sound judicial discretion, a salutary rule.” In State v. Kent (State v. Pancoast), 5 N.D. 516, 557 , 67 N.W. 1052, 1063 , 35 L.R.A. 518 , it was said, “Where a cross-examiner seeks to impair the credibility of a witness by proof of collateral crimes, he should be confined to specific acts. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. Keillor
green
2 sentences1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . 1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Meyer v. Garthwaite
green
2 sentences1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv 1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv | 1 | 1956–1956 |
In re Guardianship of Klein
neutral
2 sentences1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv 1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Burnham v. Norton
neutral
2 sentences1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv 1956Pollard v. Wegener, 13 Wis. 569 ; Damp v. Town of Dane, 29 Wis. 419 ; Butler v. Wagner, 35 Wis. 54 ; Mathie v. McIntosh, 40 Wis. 120 ; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 Wis. 571 , 66 N.W. 704 ; In re Klein, 95 Wis. 246 , 70 N.W. 64 ; Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 8 , 75 N.W. 304 , 12 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 187, 190: “ ‘When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it will take notice of the defect whether objection is made or not, and will dismiss or stay proceedings ex mero motu, [Of ones own accord] and it is its duty to do so without determining any other matter involv | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . 1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. Fury
green
2 sentences1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . 1956He may ask the witness whether or not he committed the act, or whether he has been convicted thereof or imprisoned therefor.” To the same effect are State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548 , 80 N.W. 477 ; State v. Ekanger, 8 N.D. 559 , 80 N.W. 482 ; State v. Keillor, 50 N.D. 728 , 197 N.W. 859 ; State v. Fury, 53 N.D. 333 , 205 N.W. 877 ; State v. King, 53 N.D. 95 , 204 N.W. 969 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Jacobs v. Bever
neutral
1 sentence1953Jacobs v. Bever, N.D., 55 N.W.2d 512 ; Westerso v. City of Williston, 77 N.D. 251 , 42 N.W.2d 429 , and cases cited on pages 259 and 260 of 77 N.D., and on pages 433 and 434 of 42 N.W.2d. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Westerso v. City of Williston
green
2 sentences1953Jacobs v. Bever, N.D., 55 N.W.2d 512 ; Westerso v. City of Williston, 77 N.D. 251 , 42 N.W.2d 429 , and cases cited on pages 259 and 260 of 77 N.D., and on pages 433 and 434 of 42 N.W.2d. 1953Jacobs v. Bever, N.D., 55 N.W.2d 512 ; Westerso v. City of Williston, 77 N.D. 251 , 42 N.W.2d 429 , and cases cited on pages 259 and 260 of 77 N.D., and on pages 433 and 434 of 42 N.W.2d. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
State v. Glass
green
2 sentences1931State v. Glass, 29 N. D. 620 , 151 N. W. 229 ; Jensen v. Clausen, 34 N. D. 637 , 159 N. W. 30 ; Kanable v. Great Northern R. 1931State v. Glass, 29 N. D. 620 , 151 N. W. 229 ; Jensen v. Clausen, 34 N. D. 637 , 159 N. W. 30 ; Kanable v. Great Northern R. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Jensen v. Clausen
green
2 sentences1931State v. Glass, 29 N. D. 620 , 151 N. W. 229 ; Jensen v. Clausen, 34 N. D. 637 , 159 N. W. 30 ; Kanable v. Great Northern R. 1931State v. Glass, 29 N. D. 620 , 151 N. W. 229 ; Jensen v. Clausen, 34 N. D. 637 , 159 N. W. 30 ; Kanable v. Great Northern R. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Sinking-Fund Cases
green
1 sentence1909The safety of -our institutions depends in n-o- -small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.’ Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 718 , 25 L. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Dutton v. . Willner
green
1 sentence1901The rule, and the reasons therefore are well stated by Rapallo, J., in Dutton v. Willner, 52 N. Y. 312 , in the following language: “It is a well settled and salutary rule that 'a person who undertakes to act for another in any matter shall not, in the same matter, act for himself.’ It. is only by a rigid adherence to this simple rule that all temptation can be removed from one acting in a fiduciary capacity to abuse his trust, or seek his own advantage in the position which it affords him. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.