remedial rule (North Dakota) · Go Syfert
← North Dakota issues

remedial rule in North Dakota

7 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2015 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'ngreen
nd · 1975 · cited in 5 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1998–2004
2 sentences

2004In Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, Inc. , 226 N.W.2d 370, 376 (N.D. 1975), we noted that class actions “have always been recognized and encouraged under our laws since prior to Statehood.” Rule 23, N.D.R.Civ.P., is a remedial rule for efficient resolution of the claims or liabilities of many individuals in a single action, eliminating repetitious litigation and possibly inconsistent adjudications involving common questions, related events, or requests for similar relief, and providing an effective procedure for those whose economic position is such that it is unrealistic to ex

2004In Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, Inc., 226 N.W.2d 370, 376 (N.D.1975), we noted that class actions “have always been recognized and encouraged under our laws since prior to Statehood.” Rule 23, N.D.R.Civ.P., is a remedial rule for efficient resolution of the claims or liabilities of many individuals in a single action, eliminating repetitious litigation and possibly inconsistent adjudications involving common questions, related events, or requests for similar relief, and providing an effective procedure for those whose economic position is such that it is unrealistic to expe

55
Old Broadway Corp. v. Hjellegreen
nd · 1987 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, 226 N.W.2d 370, 376 (N.D.1975); see also Old Broadway, 411 N.W.2d at 82 ; Saba, 307 N.W.2d at 593. 4 [¶ 11] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23 the court may certify an action as a class action if the following four requirements are satisfied: 1.

11
Saba v. COUNTIES OF BARNES, BENSON, ETC.green
nd · 1981 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, 226 N.W.2d 370, 376 (N.D.1975); see also Old Broadway, 411 N.W.2d at 82 ; Saba, 307 N.W.2d at 593. 4 [¶ 11] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23 the court may certify an action as a class action if the following four requirements are satisfied: 1.

11
James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgiagreen
scotus · 1991 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992See Beam, supra, ___ U.S. at ____, 111 S.Ct. at 2443 , 115 L.Ed.2d at 487-88 ("Subject to possible constitutional thresholds... the remedial inquiry is one governed by state law, at least where the case originates in state court.").

1992See Beam, supra, ___ U.S. at ____, 111 S.Ct. at 2443 , 115 L.Ed.2d at 487-88 ("Subject to possible constitutional thresholds... the remedial inquiry is one governed by state law, at least where the case originates in state court.").

11

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
Peterson v. Dougherty Dawkins, Inc. green
nd · 1998
2 sentences

2003Peterson v. Dougherty Dawkins, Inc., 1998 ND 159, ¶ 10 , 583 N.W.2d 626 (quoting Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, Inc., 226 N.W.2d 370, 376 (N.D.1975)). [¶ 8] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23, the trial court may certify a class action if the following four requirements are satisfied: 1.

2003Peterson v. Dougherty Dawkins, Inc., 1998 ND 159, ¶ 10 , 583 N.W.2d 626 (quoting Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, Inc., 226 N.W.2d 370, 376 (N.D.1975)). [¶ 8] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23, the trial court may certify a class action if the following four requirements are satisfied: 1.

22002–2003
Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. green
nd · 2004
2 sentences

2015Howe v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 ND 12, ¶ 6 , 656 N.W.2d 285 . [¶ 7] “Rule 23, ND.R.Civ.P., is a remedial rule for efficient resolution of the claims or liabilities of many individuals in a single action, eliminating repetitious litigation and possibly inconsistent adjudications involving common questions, related events, or requests for similar relief. ...” Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., 2004 ND 113, ¶ 7 , 681 N.W.2d 74 .

2015Howe v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 ND 12, ¶ 6 , 656 N.W.2d 285 . [¶ 7] “Rule 23, ND.R.Civ.P., is a remedial rule for efficient resolution of the claims or liabilities of many individuals in a single action, eliminating repetitious litigation and possibly inconsistent adjudications involving common questions, related events, or requests for similar relief. ...” Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., 2004 ND 113, ¶ 7 , 681 N.W.2d 74 .

12015–2015
Howe v. Microsoft Corp. green
nd · 2003
2 sentences

2015Howe v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 ND 12, ¶ 6 , 656 N.W.2d 285 . [¶ 7] “Rule 23, ND.R.Civ.P., is a remedial rule for efficient resolution of the claims or liabilities of many individuals in a single action, eliminating repetitious litigation and possibly inconsistent adjudications involving common questions, related events, or requests for similar relief. ...” Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., 2004 ND 113, ¶ 7 , 681 N.W.2d 74 .

2015Howe v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 ND 12, ¶ 6 , 656 N.W.2d 285 . [¶ 7] “Rule 23, ND.R.Civ.P., is a remedial rule for efficient resolution of the claims or liabilities of many individuals in a single action, eliminating repetitious litigation and possibly inconsistent adjudications involving common questions, related events, or requests for similar relief. ...” Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., 2004 ND 113, ¶ 7 , 681 N.W.2d 74 .

12015–2015

Where else courts name it

OH 147 (1980–2026) PA 37 (1909–2025) IL 28 (2003–2026) WA 14 (2002–2022) MD 11 (1946–2020) GA 10 (1921–2019) TX 9 (1980–2023) ND 7 (1992–2015) CA 7 (1980–2025) MI 5 (2001–2004) AR 5 (2003–2018) ID 4 (1997–2021) AZ 4 (2012–2018) NY 4 (1992–2020) WI 3 (1975–2010) OR 3 (1929–2023) NJ 3 (1957–1991) NC 3 (1985–2002) MN 3 (1992–2001) MO 3 (1917–2022) VT 2 (1992–1993) OK 2 (2000–2001) DE 2 (2024–2025) CO 2 (1992–2012) FL 2 (1992–2014)

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