7 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Saba v. COUNTIES OF BARNES, BENSON, ETC.green2 sentences2015See Saba v. Counties of Barnes, Benson, Burleigh, Eddy, Foster, Griggs, Kidder, Nelson, & Wells, 307 N.W.2d 590, 593 (N.D.1981). 1987See Saba v. Counties of Barnes, Benson, Etc., 307 N.W.2d 590 (N.D.1981). [2] It may be judicial schizophrenia to purport to adhere to a standard of review denominated "abuse of discretion" and at the same time indicate we will not hesitate to overrule and reverse determinations denying class-action status under the guise of accomplishing the "remedial objectives of the class action rule." In Rogelstad v. Farmers Un. | 2 | 2 |
Robert A. Holstein and Brian Grove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporationgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Holstein v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145, 1147 (7th Cir.1994); Ahmed v. University of Toledo, 822 F.2d 26, 27-28 (6th Cir.1987); Trotter v. Minear, 748 F.2d 1177, 1183-85 (7th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
S & S Landscaping Co. v. North Dakota Workers' Compensation Bureaugreen1 sentence2001Bureau, 541 N.W.2d 80, 83 (N.D.1995) (refusing to consider appellant’s argument that Bureau was slow in delivering discovery information when issue was not raised in the administrative proceedings). [¶ 16] We conclude the class action exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Clarence C. Trotter v. Paul J. Klincar, Individually and as Acting Chairman of the Prison Review Boardgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Holstein v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145, 1147 (7th Cir.1994); Ahmed v. University of Toledo, 822 F.2d 26, 27-28 (6th Cir.1987); Trotter v. Minear, 748 F.2d 1177, 1183-85 (7th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Wail Ahmed v. University of Toledogreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Holstein v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145, 1147 (7th Cir.1994); Ahmed v. University of Toledo, 822 F.2d 26, 27-28 (6th Cir.1987); Trotter v. Minear, 748 F.2d 1177, 1183-85 (7th Cir.1984). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Swisher v. Brady
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 206 , 98 S.Ct. 2699 . 2009Id. at 206 , 98 S.Ct. 2699 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Graves v. Saline County
neutral
2 sentences1981In Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed. 732 (1974), the United States Supreme Court noted that a critical fact in the litigation involved in that class action was that the petitioner’s individual stake in the damages award was only $70. 1981In Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed. 732 (1974), the United States Supreme Court noted that a critical fact in the litigation involved in that class action was that the petitioner's individual stake in the damages award was only $70. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
green
2 sentences1981In Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed. 732 (1974), the United States Supreme Court noted that a critical fact in the litigation involved in that class action was that the petitioner’s individual stake in the damages award was only $70. 1981In Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed. 732 (1974), the United States Supreme Court noted that a critical fact in the litigation involved in that class action was that the petitioner’s individual stake in the damages award was only $70. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Salvagne v. Fairfield Ford, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015They argue that while a class action “would undoubtedly provide a convenient method for Baker to prosecute a class action claim, it would also eviscerate the ability of the defendants to fairly defend themselves in court,” and they “must be given the opportunity to compel each claimant to prove that they are actually entitled to relief.” [¶50] In Salvagne , a similar case, a class was certified for a group of car buyers that challenged a Ford dealer’s financing procedures and retail installment sales contracts. 264 F.R.D. at 327 . 2015They argue that while a class action “would undoubtedly provide a convenient method for Baker to prosecute a class action claim, it would also eviscerate the ability of the defendants to fairly defend themselves in court,” and they “must be given the opportunity to compel each claimant to prove that they are actually entitled to relief.” [¶ 50] In Salvagne , a similar case, a class was certified for a group of car buyers, that challenged a Ford dealer’s financing procedures and retail installment sales contracts. 264 F.R.D. at 327 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.