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.
7 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keyes v. Amundsongreen2 sentences2016In Keyes , we stated: “[i]n the absence of a statutory requirement, courts of general jurisdiction may n’ot take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance, and the ordinance must be introduced into evidence or stipulated to by the parties just as any other evidence.” 391 N.W.2d at 607 . 2007Furthermore, “[t]he same evidence may be used to prove separate offenses.” City of Fargo v. Hector , 534 N.W.2d 821, 824 (N.D. 1995) (footnote omitted). [¶32] “In the absence of a statutory requirement, courts of general jurisdiction may not take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance, and the ordinance must be introduced into evidence or stipulated to by the parties just as any other evidence.” Keyes v. Amundson , 391 N.W.2d 602, 607 (N.D. 1986) (citations omitted); see, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 40-18-19 (“On all appeals from a determination in a municipal court, the district court shall take judic | 4 | 6 |
City of Mandan v. Mertzgreen2 sentences2007Even when judicial notice of a municipal ordinance is required, “it is essential that the trial court be supplied with the necessary information.” City of Mandan v. Mertz , 399 N.W.2d 298, 300 (N.D. 1987). [¶33] Prior to trial, Stensaker moved to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy, but he did not provide the Williston ordinance in his motion, nor did he cite to it. 2007Even when judicial notice of a municipal ordinance is required, “it is essential that the trial court be supplied with the necessary information.” City of Mandan v. Mertz, 399 N.W.2d 298, 300 (N.D.1987). [¶ 33] Prior to trial, Stensaker moved to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy, but he did not provide the Williston ordinance in his motion, nor did he cite to it. | 2 | 2 |
Nash-Kelvinator Corp. v. Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence2007Furthermore, “[t]he same evidence may be used to prove separate offenses.” City of Fargo v. Hector, 5 34 N.W.2d 821, 824 (N.D.1995) (footnote omitted). [¶ 32] “In the absence of a statutory requirement, courts of general jurisdiction may not take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance, and the ordinance must be introduced into evidence or stipulated to by the parties just as any other evidence.” Keyes v. Amundson, 391 N.W.2d 602, 607 (N.D.1986) (citations omitted); see, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 40-18-19 (“On all appeals from a determination in a municipal court, the district court shall take judicia | 1 | 1 |
City of Fargo v. Hectorgreen1 sentence2007Furthermore, “[t]he same evidence may be used to prove separate offenses.” City of Fargo v. Hector , 534 N.W.2d 821, 824 (N.D. 1995) (footnote omitted). [¶32] “In the absence of a statutory requirement, courts of general jurisdiction may not take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance, and the ordinance must be introduced into evidence or stipulated to by the parties just as any other evidence.” Keyes v. Amundson , 391 N.W.2d 602, 607 (N.D. 1986) (citations omitted); see, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 40-18-19 (“On all appeals from a determination in a municipal court, the district court shall take judic | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Velasquez
green
2 sentences2012“Words in a statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense, that is the meaning an ordinary person could get from reading the section.” State v. Velasquez, 1999 ND 217, ¶ 4 , 602 N.W.2d 698 . 2012“Words in a statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense, that is the meaning an ordinary person could get from reading the section.” State v. Velasquez , 1999 ND 217, ¶ 4 , 602 N.W.2d 693 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
City of Bismarck v. McCormick
green
1 sentence2016In City of Bismarck v. McCormick, 2012 ND 53, ¶¶ 10-13 , 813 N.W.2d 599 , a district court relied, in part, on Keyes in refusing to take judicial notice of an ordinance when a case was transferred from municipal to district court. *33 Absent introduction of, or stipulation to, the ordinance, the district court in McCormick concluded Keyes precluded it from taking judicial notice of. the ordinance. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
City of Bismarck v. McCormick
green
1 sentence2016In City of Bismarck v. McCormick, 2012 ND 53, ¶¶ 10-13 , 813 N.W.2d 599 , a district court relied, in part, on Keyes in refusing to take judicial notice of an ordinance when a case was transferred from municipal to district court. *33 Absent introduction of, or stipulation to, the ordinance, the district court in McCormick concluded Keyes precluded it from taking judicial notice of. the ordinance. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
City of Cedar Rapids v. Cach
green
1 sentence1986Concrete Contractor, Inc. v. City of Arvada, 621 P.2d 320 (Colo.1981), on remand 628 P.2d 170 (Colo.1981); Hood v. Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 247 Ga. 524 , 277 S.E.2d 54 (1981); City of Cedar Rapids v. Cach, 299 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 1980); General Motors Corporation v. Fair Employment Practices Division of Council and Human Relations of St. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
City of Arvada v. Concrete Contractors, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986Concrete Contractor, Inc. v. City of Arvada, 621 P.2d 320 (Colo.1981), on remand 628 P.2d 170 (Colo.1981); Hood v. Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 247 Ga. 524 , 277 S.E.2d 54 (1981); City of Cedar Rapids v. Cach, 299 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 1980); General Motors Corporation v. Fair Employment Practices Division of Council and Human Relations of St. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. City of Arvada
green
1 sentence1986Concrete Contractor, Inc. v. City of Arvada, 621 P.2d 320 (Colo.1981), on remand 628 P.2d 170 (Colo.1981); Hood v. Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 247 Ga. 524 , 277 S.E.2d 54 (1981); City of Cedar Rapids v. Cach, 299 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 1980); General Motors Corporation v. Fair Employment Practices Division of Council and Human Relations of St. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hood v. MAYOR & ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH
green
2 sentences1986Concrete Contractor, Inc. v. City of Arvada, 621 P.2d 320 (Colo.1981), on remand 628 P.2d 170 (Colo.1981); Hood v. Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 247 Ga. 524 , 277 S.E.2d 54 (1981); City of Cedar Rapids v. Cach, 299 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 1980); General Motors Corporation v. Fair Employment Practices Division of Council and Human Relations of St. 1986Concrete Contractor, Inc. v. City of Arvada, 621 P.2d 320 (Colo.1981), on remand 628 P.2d 170 (Colo.1981); Hood v. Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 247 Ga. 524 , 277 S.E.2d 54 (1981); City of Cedar Rapids v. Cach, 299 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 1980); General Motors Corporation v. Fair Employment Practices Division of Council and Human Relations of St. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.