time the alleged error (North Dakota) · Go Syfert
← North Dakota issues

time the alleged error in North Dakota

9 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2023 3 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Meier v. Saidgreen
nd · 2007 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2010–2023
2 sentences

2023“If a party fails to object to the admission of testimony, the party waives the objection.” Westby, at ¶ 12; see also Meier v. Said, 2007 ND 18, ¶ 18 , 726 N.W.2d 852 .

2023“If a party fails to object to the admission of testimony, the party waives the objection.” Westby, at ¶ 12; see also Meier v. Said, 2007 ND 18, ¶ 18 , 726 N.W.2d 852 .

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Westby v. Schmidt green
nd · 2010
2 sentences

2022A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and: (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context[.] An objection must be made “at the time the alleged error occurs to allow the district court to take appropriate action to remedy any prejudice that may have resulted.” Westby v. Schmidt, 2010 ND 44, ¶ 12 , 779 N.W.2d 681 . [¶6] While Halsey did not object immediately after Officer Mehrer menti

2022A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and: (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context[.] An objection must be made “at the time the alleged error occurs to allow the district court to take appropriate action to remedy any prejudice that may have resulted.” Westby v. Schmidt, 2010 ND 44, ¶ 12 , 779 N.W.2d 681 . [¶6] While Halsey did not object immediately after Officer Mehrer menti

32011–2022
City of Fargo v. Erickson green
nd · 1999
2 sentences

2004City of Fargo v. Erickson, 1999 ND 145, ¶ 22 , 598 N.W.2d 787 (Sandstrom, J., concurring).

2004City of Fargo v. Erickson, 1999 ND 145, ¶ 22 , 598 N.W.2d 787 (Sandstrom, J., concurring).

32002–2004
City of Fargo v. Erickson green
nd · 1999
2 sentences

2004City of Fargo v. Erickson, 1999 ND 145, ¶ 22 , 598 N.W.2d 787 (Sandstrom, J., concurring).

2004City of Fargo v. Erickson, 1999 ND 145, ¶ 22 , 598 N.W.2d 787 (Sandstrom, J., concurring).

32002–2004
State v. Bell green
nd · 2002
1 sentence

2009“A party must object at the time the alleged error occurs, so the trial court may take appropriate action if possible to remedy any prejudice that may have resulted.” Id. [¶ 11] Here, although Gibbs may have asked the Commission for funds for additional experts, the record does not reflect Gibbs raised this issue in the district court until his motion for new trial.

12009–2009

Where else courts name it

UT 73 (2004–2026) OH 15 (1986–2024) MO 12 (1892–2013) SD 11 (1994–2000) ND 9 (2002–2023) PA 9 (1968–2022) IL 4 (1994–2023) FL 4 (2001–2025) DC 4 (2009–2024) OK 4 (1985–2020) AR 3 (1990–2009) NJ 2 (1999–2002) WA 2 (2007–2008) GA 2 (1993–2021) NC 2 (1970–2004)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check