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 1980–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Messina v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Allied, 1999 ND 2 , ¶¶ 5 n. 1, 16, 589 N.W.2d 201 (holding dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) (1995)); Messiha, 1998 ND 149, ¶¶ 19 , 21 n. 2, 583 N.W.2d 385 (holding summary judgment dismissal was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1)). 1999Allied, 1999 ND 2 , ¶¶ 5 n. 1, 16, 589 N.W.2d 201 (holding dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) (1995)); Messiha, 1998 ND 149, ¶¶ 19 , 21 n. 2, 583 N.W.2d 385 (holding summary judgment dismissal was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1)). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Gratech Co., Ltd.green2 sentences2004See also Gratech, 2003 ND 7, ¶ 11 , 655 N.W.2d 417 . [¶ 16] In addition, § 104.06 of the contract requires that the contractor file a written notice of claim for additional compensation for work “not clearly covered in the Contract” and further provides: Conditions Precedent to Contractor’s Demand for Arbitration. 2004N.D.C.C. § 24-02-26; Gratech, 2003 ND 7, ¶ 19 , 655 N.W.2d 417 . [¶ 15] Section 24-02-26.1, N.D.C.C., provides that, as a condition precedent to arbitration, any person seeking additional compensation for work not covered in the contract must file a written notice of claim: Condition precedent to contractor demand for arbitration — Claims for extra compensation. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gratech Co.green2 sentences2004See also Gratech, 2003 ND 7, ¶ 11 , 655 N.W.2d 417 . [¶ 16] In addition, § 104.06 of the contract requires that the contractor file a written notice of claim for additional compensation for work “not clearly covered in the Contract” and further provides: Conditions Precedent to Contractor’s Demand for Arbitration. 2004N.D.C.C. § 24-02-26; Gratech, 2003 ND 7, ¶ 19 , 655 N.W.2d 417 . [¶ 15] Section 24-02-26.1, N.D.C.C., provides that, as a condition precedent to arbitration, any person seeking additional compensation for work not covered in the contract must file a written notice of claim: Condition precedent to contractor demand for arbitration — Claims for extra compensation. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. DIRECTOR OF ND DEPT. OF TRANSP.
green
2 sentences1999Allied, 1999 ND 2 , ¶¶ 5 n. 1, 16, 589 N.W.2d 201 (holding dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) (1995)); Messiha, 1998 ND 149, ¶¶ 19 , 21 n. 2, 583 N.W.2d 385 (holding summary judgment dismissal was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1)). 1999Co. v. Director of North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ND 2 , ¶ 16, 589 N.W.2d 201 (holding actual notice of an occurrence is insufficient to meet the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) and therefore concluding dismissal was proper under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(i) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Earnest v. Garcia, 1999 ND 196, ¶¶ 7-8 , 601 N.W.2d 260 (noting “the notiee-of-claim requirements of N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) implicate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction” and upholding summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiffs claims because she failed to pre | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Allied Mutual Ins. Co. v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transportation
green
2 sentences1999Allied, 1999 ND 2 , ¶¶ 5 n. 1, 16, 589 N.W.2d 201 (holding dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) (1995)); Messiha, 1998 ND 149, ¶¶ 19 , 21 n. 2, 583 N.W.2d 385 (holding summary judgment dismissal was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1)). 1999Co. v. Director of North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ND 2 , ¶ 16, 589 N.W.2d 201 (holding actual notice of an occurrence is insufficient to meet the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) and therefore concluding dismissal was proper under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(i) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Earnest v. Garcia, 1999 ND 196, ¶¶ 7-8 , 601 N.W.2d 260 (noting “the notiee-of-claim requirements of N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) implicate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction” and upholding summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiffs claims because she failed to pre | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Schaan v. Magic City Beverage Co.
green
2 sentences2009(Emphasis added.) “The particularity requirement codified in Rule 7(b)(1) has long been a part of North Dakota law.” Schaan v. Magic City Beverage Co., 2000 ND 71, ¶ 12 , 609 N.W.2d 82 (citing Olson v. Great Northern Ry. 2009(Emphasis added.) “The particularity requirement codified in Rule 7(b)(1) has long been a part of North Dakota law.” Schaan v. Magic City Beverage Co., 2000 ND 71, ¶ 12 , 609 N.W.2d 82 (citing Olson v. Great Northern Ry. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Gratech Co. v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
neutral
2 sentences2007This Court, in Gratech Co. v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 2004 ND 61 , 676 N.W.2d 781 , affirmed a judgment dismissing Gratech’s application to vacate the arbitration panel’s decision. 2007This Court, in Gratech Co. v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 2004 ND 61 , 676 N.W.2d 781 , affirmed a judgment dismissing Gratech’s application to vacate the arbitration panel’s decision. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Earnest v. Garcia
green
2 sentences1999Co. v. Director of North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ND 2 , ¶ 16, 589 N.W.2d 201 (holding actual notice of an occurrence is insufficient to meet the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) and therefore concluding dismissal was proper under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(i) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Earnest v. Garcia, 1999 ND 196, ¶¶ 7-8 , 601 N.W.2d 260 (noting “the notiee-of-claim requirements of N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) implicate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction” and upholding summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiffs claims because she failed to pre 1999Co. v. Director of North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ND 2 , ¶ 16, 589 N.W.2d 201 (holding actual notice of an occurrence is insufficient to meet the written notice of claim requirement under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) and therefore concluding dismissal was proper under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(i) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Earnest v. Garcia, 1999 ND 196, ¶¶ 7-8 , 601 N.W.2d 260 (noting “the notiee-of-claim requirements of N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) implicate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction” and upholding summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiffs claims because she failed to pre | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Long v. Samson
green
2 sentences1999Long v. Samson, 1997 ND 174, ¶ 9 , 568 N.W.2d 602 . 1999Long v. Samson, 1997 ND 174, ¶ 9 , 568 N.W.2d 602 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Suburban Sales & Service, Inc. v. District Court of Ramsey County
green
1 sentence1982Suburban Sales and Service, Incorporated v. District Court of Ramsey County, 290 N.W.2d 247 (N.D.1980); United Accounts, Incorporated v. Lantz, 145 N.W.2d 488 (N.D.1966); Sioux Falls Construction Company v. Dakota Flooring, 109 N.W.2d 244 (N.D.1961). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United Accounts, Incorporated v. Lantz
green
1 sentence1982Suburban Sales and Service, Incorporated v. District Court of Ramsey County, 290 N.W.2d 247 (N.D.1980); United Accounts, Incorporated v. Lantz, 145 N.W.2d 488 (N.D.1966); Sioux Falls Construction Company v. Dakota Flooring, 109 N.W.2d 244 (N.D.1961). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Sioux Falls Construction Co. v. Dakota Flooring
green
1 sentence1982Suburban Sales and Service, Incorporated v. District Court of Ramsey County, 290 N.W.2d 247 (N.D.1980); United Accounts, Incorporated v. Lantz, 145 N.W.2d 488 (N.D.1966); Sioux Falls Construction Company v. Dakota Flooring, 109 N.W.2d 244 (N.D.1961). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Besette v. Enderlin School District No. 22
green
2 sentences1981No. 22, 288 N.W.2d 67 (N.D.1980), we established that actual notice of an incident giving rise to a cause of action against a political subdivision under Chapter 295, 1975 S.L., is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of a written notice or claim under the statute. 1981No. 22, 288 N.W.2d 67 (N.D.1980), we established that actual notice of an incident giving rise to a cause of action against a political subdivision under Chapter 295, 1975 S.L., is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of a written notice or claim under the statute. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Kitto v. Minot Park District
green
2 sentences1980In the case of Kitto v. Minot Park District, 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D.1974) this Court abolished governmental immunity for political subdivisions but gave its decision prospective application to actions arising 15 days after adjournment of the Forty-fourth Legislative Assembly. 1980In the case of Kitto v. Minot Park District, 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D.1974) this Court abolished governmental immunity for political subdivisions but gave its decision prospective application to actions arising 15 days after adjournment of the Forty-fourth Legislative Assembly. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Kelly v. City of Rochester
green
2 sentences1980Kossak v. Stalling, 277 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.1979); Kelly v. City of Rochester, 304 Minn. 328 , 231 N.W.2d 275 (1975); Matey v. Bethlehem Central School Dist., Delmar, 89 Misc.2d 390 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 357 (Sup.Ct.1977). 1980Kossak v. Stalling, 277 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.1979); Kelly v. City of Rochester, 304 Minn. 328 , 231 N.W.2d 275 (1975); Matey v. Bethlehem Central School Dist., Delmar, 89 Misc.2d 390 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 357 (Sup.Ct.1977). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Batchelder v. Haxby
green
2 sentences1980Batchelder v. Haxby, 337 N.E.2d 887 (Ind.App.1975); Shearer v. Perry Community Sch. 1980Batchelder v. Haxby, 337 N.E.2d 887 (Ind.App.1975); Shearer v. Perry Community Sch. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Kossak v. Stalling
green
2 sentences1980Kossak v. Stalling, 277 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.1979); Kelly v. City of Rochester, 304 Minn. 328 , 231 N.W.2d 275 (1975); Matey v. Bethlehem Central School Dist., Delmar, 89 Misc.2d 390 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 357 (Sup.Ct.1977). 1980Kossak v. Stalling, 277 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.1979); Kelly v. City of Rochester, 304 Minn. 328 , 231 N.W.2d 275 (1975); Matey v. Bethlehem Central School Dist., Delmar, 89 Misc.2d 390 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 357 (Sup.Ct.1977). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Matey v. Bethlehem Central School District
green
2 sentences1980Kossak v. Stalling, 277 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.1979); Kelly v. City of Rochester, 304 Minn. 328 , 231 N.W.2d 275 (1975); Matey v. Bethlehem Central School Dist., Delmar, 89 Misc.2d 390 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 357 (Sup.Ct.1977). 1980Kossak v. Stalling, 277 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.1979); Kelly v. City of Rochester, 304 Minn. 328 , 231 N.W.2d 275 (1975); Matey v. Bethlehem Central School Dist., Delmar, 89 Misc.2d 390 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 357 (Sup.Ct.1977). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.