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.
10 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Deminggreen2 sentences2004Although a specific list of aggravating and mitigating factors for imposing sanctions are not codified, in Matter of Deming, 108 Wash.2d 82 , 736 P.2d 639, 659 (1987), the court set forth a list of factors to consider in dealing with judicial misconduct: To determine the appropriate sanction, we consider the following nonexclusive factors: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occ 2004Although a specific list of aggravating and mitigating factors for imposing sanctions are not codified, in Matter of Deming, 108 Wash.2d 82 , 736 P.2d 639, 659 (1987), the court set forth a list of factors to consider in dealing with judicial misconduct: To determine the appropriate sanction, we consider the following nonexclusive factors: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occ | 2 | 2 |
Kuhn v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2001Id. [¶ 17] Wetzel invites this Court to adopt the nonexclusive factors applied by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Kuhn v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 488 N.W.2d 838, 842 (Minn.Ct.App.1992), for determining whether a driver was afforded a reasonable amount of time to consult an attorney. 2001Id . [¶17] Wetzel invites this Court to adopt the nonexclusive factors applied by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Kuhn v. Commissioner of Public Safety , 488 N.W.2d 838, 842 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), for determining whether a driver was afforded a reasonable amount of time to consult an attorney. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Muhlegreen2 sentences2009The nonexclusive factors to be considered for Rule 803(24) trustworthiness include “(1) ‘spontaneity and consistent repetition’ of the statements, (2) ‘the mental state of the declarant,’ (3) ‘use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age,’ and (4) ‘a lack of motive to fabricate.’ ” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 131, ¶ 12 , 737 N.W.2d 636 (quoting State v. Messner, 1998 ND 151, ¶ 15 , 583 N.W.2d 109 , overruled on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 ). 2009The nonexclusive factors to be considered for Rule 803(24) trustworthiness include “(1) ‘spontaneity and consistent repetition’ of the statements, (2) ‘the mental state of the declarant,’ (3) ‘use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age,’ and (4) ‘a lack of motive to fabricate.’ ” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 131, ¶ 12 , 737 N.W.2d 636 (quoting State v. Messner, 1998 ND 151, ¶ 15 , 583 N.W.2d 109 , overruled on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 ). | 1 | 2 |
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bahr-Rennergreen1 sentence2016See id. at ¶ 13 ■ (concluding the district court considered the totality of the circumstances without making determinations under each factor). [¶ 13] Here, the district court considered the nonexclusive factors adopted in Bahr-Renner in determining whether Roller was' a resident of Todd Anderson’s household at the time of the accident. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Disciplinary Action Against McGuire
green
2 sentences2014Ill [¶ 8] In McGuire, 2004 ND 171, ¶33 , 685 N.W.2d 748 , this Court listed factors to consider in imposing sanctions for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct: To determine the appropriate sanction, we consider the following nonexclusive factors: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has 2014Ill [¶ 8] In McGuire, 2004 ND 171, ¶33 , 685 N.W.2d 748 , this Court listed factors to consider in imposing sanctions for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct: To determine the appropriate sanction, we consider the following nonexclusive factors: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Judicial Conduct Commission v. Hagar
green
2 sentences2014V [¶ 27] In Judicial Conduct Comm’n v. Hogar, 2014 ND 33, ¶ 8 , 842 N.W.2d 873 , we explained relevant factors for the imposition of discipline: *839 To determine the appropriate sanction, we consider the following nonexclusive factors: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has acknowledged or 2014V [¶ 27] In Judicial Conduct Comm’n v. Hogar, 2014 ND 33, ¶ 8 , 842 N.W.2d 873 , we explained relevant factors for the imposition of discipline: *839 To determine the appropriate sanction, we consider the following nonexclusive factors: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has acknowledged or | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. James E. Rasmussen
green
1 sentence2010We conclude that in determining “corroborating circumstances” under N.D.R.Ev. 804(b)(3), the district court should analyze both the credibility of the in-court witness and the reliability of the out-of-court de-clarant. [¶ 25] In Rasmussen, 790 F.2d at 56 , the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals listed the following nonexclusive factors to be considered in analyzing the veracity of the in-court witness and the reliability of the out-of-court declarant: (1) whether there is any apparent motive for the out-of-court declarant to misrepresent the matter, (2) the general character of the speaker, (3) | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Messner
green
2 sentences2009The nonexclusive factors to be considered for Rule 803(24) trustworthiness include “(1) ‘spontaneity and consistent repetition’ of the statements, (2) ‘the mental state of the declarant,’ (3) ‘use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age,’ and (4) ‘a lack of motive to fabricate.’ ” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 131, ¶ 12 , 737 N.W.2d 636 (quoting State v. Messner, 1998 ND 151, ¶ 15 , 583 N.W.2d 109 , overruled on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 ). 2009The nonexclusive factors to be considered for Rule 803(24) trustworthiness include “(1) ‘spontaneity and consistent repetition’ of the statements, (2) ‘the mental state of the declarant,’ (3) ‘use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age,’ and (4) ‘a lack of motive to fabricate.’ ” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 131, ¶ 12 , 737 N.W.2d 636 (quoting State v. Messner, 1998 ND 151, ¶ 15 , 583 N.W.2d 109 , overruled on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Blue
green
2 sentences2009The nonexclusive factors to be considered for Rule 803(24) trustworthiness include “(1) ‘spontaneity and consistent repetition’ of the statements, (2) ‘the mental state of the declarant,’ (3) ‘use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age,’ and (4) ‘a lack of motive to fabricate.’ ” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 131, ¶ 12 , 737 N.W.2d 636 (quoting State v. Messner, 1998 ND 151, ¶ 15 , 583 N.W.2d 109 , overruled on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 ). 2009The nonexclusive factors to be considered for Rule 803(24) trustworthiness include “(1) ‘spontaneity and consistent repetition’ of the statements, (2) ‘the mental state of the declarant,’ (3) ‘use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age,’ and (4) ‘a lack of motive to fabricate.’ ” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 131, ¶ 12 , 737 N.W.2d 636 (quoting State v. Messner, 1998 ND 151, ¶ 15 , 583 N.W.2d 109 , overruled on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Boyce v. Backes
green
1 sentence2001Id. [¶ 17] Wetzel invites this Court to adopt the nonexclusive factors applied by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Kuhn v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 488 N.W.2d 838, 842 (Minn.Ct.App.1992), for determining whether a driver was afforded a reasonable amount of time to consult an attorney. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.