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.
8 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peek v. Berninggreen2 sentences2006See Peek v. Berning, 2001 ND 34, ¶ 25 , 622 N.W.2d 186 . [¶ 9] Dean Clark served supplemental responses naming his expert witnesses on September 7 and 8, 2005, about 12 days before the scheduled hearing. 2006See Peek v. Berning, 2001 ND 34, ¶ 25 , 622 N.W.2d 186 . [¶ 9] Dean Clark served supplemental responses naming his expert witnesses on September 7 and 8, 2005, about 12 days before the scheduled hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Breyfogle v. Braungreen1 sentence1996See Breyfogle v. Braun, 460 N.W.2d 689 (N.D.1990)(the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary dismissal under Rule 3.2, N.D.R.O.C., where the party opposing the motion responded before the scheduled hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Production Credit Ass'n of Mandan v. Obrigewitchgreen1 sentence1990Compare Production Credit Ass’n v. Obrigewitch, 443 N.W.2d 304 (N.D.1989). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCarty v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1999McCarty , 1998 ND at &P& 12, 574 N.W.2d 556 . [&P&7] The scheduled hearing to determine if Fuchs’s driving privileges should be revoked for his failure to submit to a chemical test was never held. 1999McCarty , 1998 ND at ¶ 12, 574 N.W.2d 556 . [¶ 7.] The scheduled hearing to determine if Fuchs’s driving privileges should be revoked for his failure to submit to a chemical test was never held. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Johnson v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Grand Forks Homes, Inc. v. Grand Forks Board of County Commissioners
neutral
1 sentence2014Comm’rs, 2011 ND 50, ¶ 8 , 795 N.W.2d 381 (“A district court’s decision whether to order the taking of additional evidence under N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01(3) is discretionary.”). [¶29] In its order denying Imboden’s motion to file additional affidavits, the district court stated, “The time for Imboden to have filed his affidavit was when he made his motion to vacate the judgment.” The court also stated, “[H]e had the opportunity to appear at the scheduled hearing to present testimony. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Grand Forks Homes, Inc. v. Grand Forks Bd. of Co. Comm'rs
neutral
1 sentence2014Comm’rs, 2011 ND 50, ¶ 8 , 795 N.W.2d 381 (“A district court’s decision whether to order the taking of additional evidence under N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01(3) is discretionary.”). [¶29] In its order denying Imboden’s motion to file additional affidavits, the district court stated, “The time for Imboden to have filed his affidavit was when he made his motion to vacate the judgment.” The court also stated, “[H]e had the opportunity to appear at the scheduled hearing to present testimony. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Nastrom v. Nastrom
green
1 sentence2014He failed to appear.” The court also cited to Nastrom v. Nastrom, 262 N.W.2d 487 (N.D.1978), for the proposition that it is the responsibility of the party to provide necessary evidence to permit the court to make findings of fact, not the responsibility of the court. [¶ 30] It was not unreasonable for the district court to prevent Imboden from filing an affidavit after a hearing in which he already had an opportunity to testify, especially since it would give him the unfair advantage of avoiding cross-examination and having a free response, on his own terms, to the evidence and arguments pres | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. Ellis
neutral
2 sentences1989In Disciplinary Bd. v. Ellis, 418 N.W.2d 788 (N.D.1988), we concluded that the hearing panel should have granted a request for a continuance because it was supported by a plausible medical reason that Ellis could not attend the scheduled hearing. 1989In Disciplinary Bd. v. Ellis, 418 N.W.2d 788 (N.D.1988), we concluded that the hearing panel should have granted a request for a continuance “because it was supported by a plausible medical reason why Ellis could not attend the scheduled hearing.” Here, however, Peterson’s request was not supported with a letter from a physician and was not supported by a plausible medical reason why either Peterson or his attorney could not attend the scheduled hearing. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.