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 2011–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glen Falls Insurance v. Smithgreen2 sentences2016Co. v. Smith, 217 W.Va. 213 , 617 S.E.2d 760, 765 (2005), to consider in making the determination: [I]n a homeowners’ insurance policy [or an automobile insurance policy] that does not otherwise define the phrase “resident of your household,” the phrase means a person who dwells — though not necessarily under a common roof — with other individuals who are named insureds in a manner and for a sufficient length of time so that they could be considered to be a family living together. 2016Co. v. Smith, 217 W.Va. 213 , 617 S.E.2d 760, 765 (2005), to consider in making the determination: [I]n a homeowners’ insurance policy [or an automobile insurance policy] that does not otherwise define the phrase “resident of your household,” the phrase means a person who dwells — though not necessarily under a common roof — with other individuals who are named insureds in a manner and for a sufficient length of time so that they could be considered to be a family living together. | 4 | 4 |
United States v. Keenegreen2 sentences2011While this enumeration is not etched in stone — each case is different, and the situations that may arise are simply too diverse to render a mechanical checklist desirable — these factors often serve as a useful starting point.” Id. at ¶ 13 (quoting United States v. Keene, 287 F.3d 229, 234 (1st Cir.2002)). 2011While this enumeration is not etched in stone—each case is different, and the situations that may arise are simply too diverse to render a mechanical checklist desirable—these factors often serve as a useful starting point.” Id. at ¶ 13 (quoting United States v. Keene , 287 F.3d 229, 234 (1st Cir. 2002)). | 2 | 2 |
| 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. Voigt
green
2 sentences2011While this enumeration is not etched in stone — each case is different, and the situations that may arise are simply too diverse to render a mechanical checklist desirable — these factors often serve as a useful starting point.” Id. at ¶ 13 (quoting United States v. Keene, 287 F.3d 229, 234 (1st Cir.2002)). 2011While this enumeration is not etched in stone—each case is different, and the situations that may arise are simply too diverse to render a mechanical checklist desirable—these factors often serve as a useful starting point.” Id. at ¶ 13 (quoting United States v. Keene , 287 F.3d 229, 234 (1st Cir. 2002)). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Millner
green
1 sentence2018Id. [¶ 11] While we have not explicitly adopted factors to show fair and just reasons, federal courts use a list of nonexclusive factors to evaluate defendants' claims for withdrawal of guilty pleas. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.