detailed analysis in North Dakota

2019See United States v. Harper, No. 91-2347, 1991 WL 206287 (8th Cir. Oct. 16, 1991) (district court’s omission of an opportunity for defendant to allocute required resentencing).

2019See United States v. Harper , 946 F.2d 1373 (8th Cir.1991) (district court's omission of an *431 opportunity for defendant to allocute required resentencing).

2019State v. Runck, 534 N.W.2d 829, 831 (N.D. 1995). [¶11] The Eighth Circuit has recognized plain error when the right to make an allocution statement is overlooked, but has not provided a detailed analysis.

2019State v. Runck , 534 N.W.2d 829 , 831 (N.D. 1995). [¶11] The Eighth Circuit has recognized plain error when the right to make an allocution statement is overlooked, but has not provided a detailed analysis.

2006This Court has recognized that “[b]ecause of the more detailed analysis necessarily involved in determining which parent may get the presumption when reciprocal abuse is alleged, we require a trial court to focus its findings more carefully and specifically on the degree of violent behavior by each parent.” Reeves v. Chepulis, 1999 ND 63 , ¶ 14 n. 1, 591 N.W.2d 791 (citing Zimmeman v. Zimmerman, 1997 ND 182, ¶ 9 , 569 N.W.2d 277 and Owan v. Owan, 541 N.W.2d 719, 722-23 (N.D.1996)).

2006This Court has recognized that “[b]ecause of the more detailed analysis necessarily involved in determining which parent may get the presumption when reciprocal abuse is alleged, we require a trial court to focus its findings more carefully and specifically on the degree of violent behavior by each parent.” Reeves v. Chepulis, 1999 ND 63 , ¶ 14 n. 1, 591 N.W.2d 791 (citing Zimmeman v. Zimmerman, 1997 ND 182, ¶ 9 , 569 N.W.2d 277 and Owan v. Owan, 541 N.W.2d 719, 722-23 (N.D.1996)).

2006This Court has recognized that “[b]ecause of the more detailed analysis necessarily involved in determining which parent may get the presumption when reciprocal abuse is alleged, we require a trial court to focus its findings more carefully and specifically on the degree of violent behavior by each parent.” Reeves v. Chepulis , 1999 ND 63 , ¶ 14 n.1, 591 N.W.2d 791 (citing Zimmerman v. Zimmerman , 1997 ND 182, ¶ 9 , 569 N.W.2d 277 and Owan v. Owan , 541 N.W.2d 719, 722-23 (N.D. 1996)).

2006This Court has recognized that “[b]ecause of the more detailed analysis necessarily involved in determining which parent may get the presumption when reciprocal abuse is alleged, we require a trial court to focus its findings more carefully and specifically on the degree of violent behavior by each parent.” Reeves v. Chepulis, 1999 ND 63 , ¶ 14 n. 1, 591 N.W.2d 791 (citing Zimmeman v. Zimmerman, 1997 ND 182, ¶ 9 , 569 N.W.2d 277 and Owan v. Owan, 541 N.W.2d 719, 722-23 (N.D.1996)).

2010Cf. Quist v. Best Western International, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 656, 663-64 (N.D.1984) (party who invoked the Securities Commissioner’s authority and sought an exemption under a regulatory statute could not thereafter challenge the Commissioner’s authority to act). [¶ 16] Under the circumstances in this case, we conclude the district court erred in engaging in a detailed analysis of small, individual portions within the 949-acre tract.

1986Defts confirmed those facts to Altons. —Prior leakage was obvious and apparent from casual view. —Cost of roofing maintenance in relation to other costs of operation were minimal. —Altons assumed any risk associated with condition of roofing and its patching and maintenance. —Defts did not commit any fraud, actual or constructive. —Persuasive evidence constrains a conclusion there was no conduct by sellers in the negotiations with intent to deceive or misrepresent.” Our review of factual issues tried to the court was summarized in Byron v. Gerring Industries, Inc., 328 N.W.2d 819, 821 (N.D.198