7 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lill v. Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences2004Coop., Inc., 456 N.W.2d 527, 530 (N.D.1990), this Court said the business judgment rule applied to decisions by a cooperative’s board of directors: Normally, the good faith acts of corporate directors within the power of the corporation and in the exercise of honest business judgment are considered valid and the courts generally will not interfere with or regulate the conduct of the directors in the reasonable and honest exercise of their judgment and duties where their judgment is uninfluenced by personal consideration. [¶ 18] We conclude that standard applies to a trial court’s consideration 1994Co-op., 456 N.W.2d 527, 530 (N.D.1990) [recognizing that “the business judgment rule prohibits judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance of corporate purposes.”]. | 4 | 4 |
Matter of Conservatorship of Sicklesgreen2 sentences2008D [¶ 35] The majority limited partners also argue Kesselring and Leno’s actions are protected by the business judgment rule. [¶ 36] In the analogous context of corporations, this Court has noted “ ‘the business judgment rule prohibits judicial inquiry into actions of corporate di *222 rectors taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance of corporate purposes.’ ” In re Conservatorship of Sickles, 518 N.W.2d 673, 681 (N.D.1994) (quoting Lili v. Cavalier Rural Elec. 2008“Under the business judgment rule, corporate directors are shielded ‘from all liability except for self-dealing, willful misconduct or gross negligence.’” In re Conservatorship of Sickles, 518 N.W.2d at 680-81 (citation omitted). [¶ 37] Although Kesselring and Leno claim they acted in good faith and exercised honest business judgment, the district court’s findings reflect the majority group’s actions were reckless, were undertaken in bad faith, and were for the purpose of furthering the group’s own perceived interests. | 1 | 1 |
Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners' Ass'ngreen2 sentences1995Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334 , 526 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominium, 167 N.J.Super. 516 , 401 A.2d 280, 286 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div.1979); Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc., 597 N.Y.S.2d at 966 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners, 134 A.D.2d 1 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 523, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1987); Schwarzmann v. Association of Apartment Owners of Bridgehaven, 33 Wash.App. 397 , 655 P.2d 1177, 1180-1181 (Wash.Ct.App.1982). 1995Under the business-judgment rule, “where a challenge is made by an individual owner to an action of a condominium board ..., absent claims of fraud, self-dealing, un-conscionability or other misconduct, the court should apply the business-judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the [board’s] action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the condominium.” Schoninger, 523 N.Y.S.2d at 529 . | 1 | 1 |
Schwarzmann v. Ass'n of Apartment Ownersgreen2 sentences1995Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334 , 526 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominium, 167 N.J.Super. 516 , 401 A.2d 280, 286 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div.1979); Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc., 597 N.Y.S.2d at 966 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners, 134 A.D.2d 1 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 523, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1987); Schwarzmann v. Association of Apartment Owners of Bridgehaven, 33 Wash.App. 397 , 655 P.2d 1177, 1180-1181 (Wash.Ct.App.1982). 1995Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334 , 526 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominium, 167 N.J.Super. 516 , 401 A.2d 280, 286 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div.1979); Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc., 597 N.Y.S.2d at 966 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners, 134 A.D.2d 1 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 523, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1987); Schwarzmann v. Association of Apartment Owners of Bridgehaven, 33 Wash.App. 397 , 655 P.2d 1177, 1180-1181 (Wash.Ct.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Rywalt v. Writer Corporationgreen2 sentences1995Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334 , 526 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominium, 167 N.J.Super. 516 , 401 A.2d 280, 286 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div.1979); Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc., 597 N.Y.S.2d at 966 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners, 134 A.D.2d 1 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 523, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1987); Schwarzmann v. Association of Apartment Owners of Bridgehaven, 33 Wash.App. 397 , 655 P.2d 1177, 1180-1181 (Wash.Ct.App.1982). 1995Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334 , 526 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominium, 167 N.J.Super. 516 , 401 A.2d 280, 286 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div.1979); Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc., 597 N.Y.S.2d at 966 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners, 134 A.D.2d 1 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 523, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1987); Schwarzmann v. Association of Apartment Owners of Bridgehaven, 33 Wash.App. 397 , 655 P.2d 1177, 1180-1181 (Wash.Ct.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominiumgreen2 sentences1995Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334 , 526 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominium, 167 N.J.Super. 516 , 401 A.2d 280, 286 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div.1979); Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc., 597 N.Y.S.2d at 966 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners, 134 A.D.2d 1 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 523, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1987); Schwarzmann v. Association of Apartment Owners of Bridgehaven, 33 Wash.App. 397 , 655 P.2d 1177, 1180-1181 (Wash.Ct.App.1982). 1995Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334 , 526 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominium, 167 N.J.Super. 516 , 401 A.2d 280, 286 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div.1979); Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc., 597 N.Y.S.2d at 966 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners, 134 A.D.2d 1 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 523, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1987); Schwarzmann v. Association of Apartment Owners of Bridgehaven, 33 Wash.App. 397 , 655 P.2d 1177, 1180-1181 (Wash.Ct.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp.green2 sentences1990See also Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 , 554 N.Y.S.2d 807 , 553 N.E.2d 1317 (1990) (the business judgment rule prohibits judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance of corporate purposes.) There is no evidence that the directors of the Co-op made their decisions absent good faith. 1990See also Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 , 554 N.Y.S.2d 807 , 553 N.E.2d 1317 (1990) (the business judgment rule prohibits judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance of corporate purposes.) There is no evidence that the directors of the Co-op made their decisions absent good faith. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dixon v. McKENZIE COUNTY GRAZING ASSOCIATION
green
2 sentences2008Coop., 456 N.W.2d 527, 580 (N.D.1990)). “ ‘Normally, the good faith acts of corporate directors within the power of the corporation and in the exercise of honest business judgment are considered valid and the courts generally will not interfere with or regulate the conduct of the directors in the reasonable and honest exercise of their judgment and duties where their judgment is uninfluenced by personal consideration.’ ” Dixon v. McKenzie County Grazing Ass’n, 2004 ND 40, ¶ 17 , 675 N.W.2d 414 (quoting Lill, 456 N.W.2d at 530 ). 2008Coop., 456 N.W.2d 527, 580 (N.D.1990)). “ ‘Normally, the good faith acts of corporate directors within the power of the corporation and in the exercise of honest business judgment are considered valid and the courts generally will not interfere with or regulate the conduct of the directors in the reasonable and honest exercise of their judgment and duties where their judgment is uninfluenced by personal consideration.’ ” Dixon v. McKenzie County Grazing Ass’n, 2004 ND 40, ¶ 17 , 675 N.W.2d 414 (quoting Lill, 456 N.W.2d at 530 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Buckingham v. Weston Village Homeowners Association
green
2 sentences2005Buckingham v. Weston Village Homeowners Ass’n, 1997 ND 237, ¶ 9 , 571 N.W.2d 842 . “[T]he power of a condominium’s governing body to make rules, regulations or amendments to the declaration *872 or bylaws is limited by a determination of whether the action is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.” Id. at ¶ 14.' [¶ 15] The reasonableness of a condominium use restriction is “determined not by reference to facts that are specific to the objecting homeowner, but by reference to the common interest development as a whole.” Nahrstedt, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63 , 878 P.2d at 1290 . “[Prohib 2005Buckingham v. Weston Village Homeowners Ass’n, 1997 ND 237, ¶ 9 , 571 N.W.2d 842 . “[T]he power of a condominium’s governing body to make rules, regulations or amendments to the declaration *872 or bylaws is limited by a determination of whether the action is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.” Id. at ¶ 14.' [¶ 15] The reasonableness of a condominium use restriction is “determined not by reference to facts that are specific to the objecting homeowner, but by reference to the common interest development as a whole.” Nahrstedt, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63 , 878 P.2d at 1290 . “[Prohib | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.
green
2 sentences2005Buckingham v. Weston Village Homeowners Ass’n, 1997 ND 237, ¶ 9 , 571 N.W.2d 842 . “[T]he power of a condominium’s governing body to make rules, regulations or amendments to the declaration *872 or bylaws is limited by a determination of whether the action is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.” Id. at ¶ 14.' [¶ 15] The reasonableness of a condominium use restriction is “determined not by reference to facts that are specific to the objecting homeowner, but by reference to the common interest development as a whole.” Nahrstedt, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63 , 878 P.2d at 1290 . “[Prohib 2005Buckingham v. Weston Village Homeowners Ass’n, 1997 ND 237, ¶ 9 , 571 N.W.2d 842 . “[T]he power of a condominium’s governing body to make rules, regulations or amendments to the declaration *872 or bylaws is limited by a determination of whether the action is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.” Id. at ¶ 14.' [¶ 15] The reasonableness of a condominium use restriction is “determined not by reference to facts that are specific to the objecting homeowner, but by reference to the common interest development as a whole.” Nahrstedt, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63 , 878 P.2d at 1290 . “[Prohib | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Ass'n v. Terifaj
green
2 sentences2005Buckingham v. Weston Village Homeowners Ass’n, 1997 ND 237, ¶ 9 , 571 N.W.2d 842 . “[T]he power of a condominium’s governing body to make rules, regulations or amendments to the declaration *872 or bylaws is limited by a determination of whether the action is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.” Id. at ¶ 14.' [¶ 15] The reasonableness of a condominium use restriction is “determined not by reference to facts that are specific to the objecting homeowner, but by reference to the common interest development as a whole.” Nahrstedt, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63 , 878 P.2d at 1290 . “[Prohib 2005Buckingham v. Weston Village Homeowners Ass’n, 1997 ND 237, ¶ 9 , 571 N.W.2d 842 . “[T]he power of a condominium’s governing body to make rules, regulations or amendments to the declaration *872 or bylaws is limited by a determination of whether the action is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.” Id. at ¶ 14.' [¶ 15] The reasonableness of a condominium use restriction is “determined not by reference to facts that are specific to the objecting homeowner, but by reference to the common interest development as a whole.” Nahrstedt, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63 , 878 P.2d at 1290 . “[Prohib | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Agassiz West Condominium Ass'n v. Solum
green
2 sentences1997Agassiz West, 527 N.W.2d at 248 . 1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334 , 526 P.2d 316, 317 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Papalexiou v. Tower West Condominium, 167 N.J.Super. 516 , 401 A.2d 280, 286 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div.1979); Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc., 597 N.Y.S.2d at 966 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners, 134 A.D.2d 1 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 523, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1987); Schwarzmann v. Association of Apartment Owners of Bridgehaven, 33 Wash.App. 397 , 655 P.2d 1177, 1180-1181 (Wash.Ct.App.1982). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.