53 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1926–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gajewski v. Bratchergreen2 sentences2014This Court has explained the application of the parol evidence rule: “ ‘ “ “Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement:’ ... ‘all preliminary negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written contract ... and “unless fraud, accident, or mistake be averred, the writing constitutes the agreement between the parties, and its terms cannot be added to nor subtracted from by parol evidence.” ”” ” [ 2013The deeds are writings satisfying the statute of frauds, and the issue involves the application of the parol evidence rule to the deeds and the claimed prior oral agreement. [¶ 12] Under the statutory formulation of the substantive parol evidence rule in N.D.C.C. § 9-06-07, “[t]he execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it be written or not, super-cedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.” See Gajewski v. Bratcher, 221 N.W.2d 614, 625-26 (N.D.1974). | 8 | 12 |
Ell v. Ellgreen2 sentences2011If courts refused to admit parol evidence in reformation cases, the rule would become “an instrument of the very fraud or mistake it was designed to prevent.” Ell , at 150. 2005In Ell , at 149-50 (citations omitted), this Court explained the role of parol evidence in a reformation action: The parol evidence rule is not a rule of evidence, but rather, it is a rule of substantive law. | 3 | 4 |
Delzer v. United Bank of Bismarckgreen2 sentences2007See Delzer v. United Bank, *856 459 N.W.2d 752, 755 (N.D.1990). 2007See Delzer v. United Bank, 459 N.W.2d 752, 755 (N.D.1990). | 3 | 3 |
Associated Hardware Supply Co. v. The Big Wheel Distributing Companygreen2 sentences2001We said: The parol evidence rule has been variously defined and has been best stated as follows: “ ‘ “ ‘Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement:’ ... ‘all preliminary negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written contract ... and “unless fraud, accident, or mistake be averred, the uniting constitutes the agreement between the parties, and its terms cannot be added to nor subtracted fro 1985In Gajewski v. Bratcher, supra, 221 N.W.2d at 626 , we discussed the application and effect of the parol-evidence rule: “The parol evidence rule has been variously defined and has been best stated as follows: ‘ “ ‘ “Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement;” * * * “all preliminary negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written contract * * * and ‘unless fraud, accident, or mistake be ave | 3 | 3 |
Zimmer v. Bellongreen2 sentences2017“The parol evidence rule applies only to parties to a contract, and such rule has no application to a third person who is not a party to the contract or who is not attempting to [en]force rights [under the contract].” Zimmer v. Bellon, 153 N.W.2d 757 , 759 Syll. 8 (N.D.1967) (emphasis added). 1974See also, Bolyea v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilton, N.D., 196 N.W.2d 149 (N.D.1972); Zimmer v. Bellon, 153 N.W.2d 757 (N.D.1967); Ives v. Hanson, 66 N.W.2d 802 (N.D.1954); Hanes v. Mitchell, supra. Second, we are satisfied that the testimony of Glenna and Lloyd Gajewski to the effect that they delivered the quitclaim deed to the plaintiffs on the condition that it was to be returned to them upon the payment of the debt secured thereby is equally incompetent and inadmissible under the parol evidence rule because our statute declares: “A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionall | 2 | 5 |
Citizens State Bank-Midwest v. Symingtongreen2 sentences2014This Court has explained the application of the parol evidence rule: “ ‘ “ “Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement:’ ... ‘all preliminary negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written contract ... and “unless fraud, accident, or mistake be averred, the writing constitutes the agreement between the parties, and its terms cannot be added to nor subtracted from by parol evidence.” ”” ” [ 2014This Court has explained the application of the parol evidence rule: “ ‘ “ “Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement:’ ... ‘all preliminary negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written contract ... and “unless fraud, accident, or mistake be averred, the writing constitutes the agreement between the parties, and its terms cannot be added to nor subtracted from by parol evidence.” ”” ” [ | 2 | 4 |
Radspinner v. Charlesworthgreen2 sentences1998Felco argues, and Doug’s acknowledges, “[t]he execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.” N.D.C.C. § 9-06-07; see Radspinner v. Charlesworth, 369 N.W.2d 109, 112 (N.D.1985) (noting N.D.C.C. § 9-06-07 codifies the parol-evidence rule). 1997The trial court incorrectly concluded all terms of the parties’ overall agreement merged into the initial deeds from the first transaction. [¶ 17] The McEnroes’ reliance on Radspinner v. Charlesworth, 369 N.W.2d 109 (N.D.1985), for the proposition a prior deed cannot be modified because of the parol evidence rule, is misplaced. | 2 | 3 |
Bye v. Elvickgreen2 sentences2014They argue the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence outside the Finstad-Beresford deed, because the deed and settlement agreement allegedly constitute “a mass of documents and conversations which together constitute the agreement and the parties’ intent cannot be clearly ascertained from the written documents alone[.]” Bye v. Elvick, 336 N.W.2d 106, 112 (N.D.1983). [¶ 15] The district court concluded the Finstads did not plead with sufficient particularity that the Finstad-Beresford deed was executed or delivered as a result of fraud, accident, or mistake, or that they were treated unfair 2001Radspinner v. Charlesworth, 869 N.W.2d 109 , 112 (N.D.1985); Bye v. Elvick, 336 N.W.2d 106, 111 (N.D.1983); Gajewski , at 626. [¶ 8] In Gajewski, 221 N.W.2d at 627 , we concluded oral testimony was incompetent and inadmissible (1) to vary or contradict an executed and delivered quitclaim deed; (2) to prove the deed was security for repayment of a loan; and (3) to nullify the grant contained in the deed. | 2 | 2 |
Wildfang-Miller Motors, Inc. v. Millergreen2 sentences1985See Wildfang-Miller Motors, Inc. v. Miller, 186 N.W.2d 581 (N.D.1971). 1984See Wildfang-Miller Motors, Inc. v. Miller, 186 N.W.2d 581, 585 (N.D.1971). | 2 | 2 |
Hanes v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences1975Section 9-06-07, N.D.C.C., although a partial enactment of the parol evidence rule [Hanes v. Mitchell, 78 N.D. 341 , 49 N.W.2d 606 (1951)], constitutes a rule of substantive law. 1975Section 9-06-07, N.D.C.C., although a partial enactment of the parol evidence rule [Hanes v. Mitchell, 78 N.D. 341 , 49 N.W.2d 606 (1951)], constitutes a rule of substantive law. | 1 | 5 |
WFND, LLC v. Fargo Marc, LLCgreen2 sentences2013See WFND, LLC v. Fargo Marc, LLC, 2007 ND 67, ¶ 39 , 730 N.W.2d 841 ; Gunderson v. Burbidge, 75 N.W.2d 757, 761 (N.D.1956). [¶ 29] We conclude the parol evidence rule does not apply here. 2013See WFND, LLC v. Fargo Marc, LLC, 2007 ND 67, ¶ 39 , 730 N.W.2d 841 ; Gunderson v. Burbidge, 75 N.W.2d 757, 761 (N.D.1956). [¶ 29] We conclude the parol evidence rule does not apply here. | 1 | 3 |
Carufel v. Kountsgreen2 sentences1974Section 9-07-05, N.D.C.C.; Schue v. Jacoby, 162 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.1968); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Anderson, 155 N.W.2d 728 (N.D.1968); Wilson v. Polsfut, 78 N.D. 204 , 49 N.W.2d 102 (1951); Carufel v. Kounts, 60 N.D. 91 , 232 N.W. 609 (1930); Jasper v. Hazen, supra; and (2) That, on the contrary, where, in an action at law or in equity, a deed or other written instrument is complete, unambiguous and absolute in its terms and there is no sufficient or specific allegation of fraud, mistake or accident in the complaint, answer or cross claim, the parol evidence rule, as we have define 1974Section 9-07-05, N.D.C.C.; Schue v. Jacoby, 162 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.1968); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Anderson, 155 N.W.2d 728 (N.D.1968); Wilson v. Polsfut, 78 N.D. 204 , 49 N.W.2d 102 (1951); Carufel v. Kounts, 60 N.D. 91 , 232 N.W. 609 (1930); Jasper v. Hazen, supra; and (2) That, on the contrary, where, in an action at law or in equity, a deed or other written instrument is complete, unambiguous and absolute in its terms and there is no sufficient or specific allegation of fraud, mistake or accident in the complaint, answer or cross claim, the parol evidence rule, as we have define | 1 | 2 |
Schue v. Jacobygreen2 sentences1974Section 9-07-05, N.D.C.C.; Schue v. Jacoby, 162 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.1968); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Anderson, 155 N.W.2d 728 (N.D.1968); Wilson v. Polsfut, 78 N.D. 204 , 49 N.W.2d 102 (1951); Carufel v. Kounts, 60 N.D. 91 , 232 N.W. 609 (1930); Jasper v. Hazen, supra ; and (2) That, on the contrary, where, in an action at law or in equity, a deed or other written instrument is complete, unambiguous and absolute in its terms and there is no sufficient or specific allegation of fraud, mistake or accident in the complaint, answer or cross claim, the parol evidence rule, as we have defin 1974Section 9-07-05, N.D.C.C.; Schue v. Jacoby, 162 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.1968); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Anderson, 155 N.W.2d 728 (N.D.1968); Wilson v. Polsfut, 78 N.D. 204 , 49 N.W.2d 102 (1951); Carufel v. Kounts, 60 N.D. 91 , 232 N.W. 609 (1930); Jasper v. Hazen, supra; and (2) That, on the contrary, where, in an action at law or in equity, a deed or other written instrument is complete, unambiguous and absolute in its terms and there is no sufficient or specific allegation of fraud, mistake or accident in the complaint, answer or cross claim, the parol evidence rule, as we have define | 1 | 2 |
Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. Millergreen1 sentence2014Power Coop. v. Miller, 310 N.W.2d 715, 718 (N.D.1981) (“[T]he public is entitled to rely upon the record title to property, not the unknown intentions of the individual conveyor of the property.”). [¶ 21] Although the Finstads provided extrinsic evidence indicating the Finstad-Beresford deed was not intended to be an actual transfer of ownership, we conclude extrinsic evidence may not be considered under the parol evidence rule, because the delivered and recorded Finstad-Beresford deed clearly and unambiguously conveyed all of the Finstads’ right, title, and interest in the property to Beresfo | 1 | 1 |
Ehlen v. Melvingreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Ehlen v. Melvin, 2012 ND 246, ¶ 16 , 823 N.W.2d 780 ; N.D.C.C. § 9-06-07. | 1 | 1 |
Ehlen v. Melvingreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Ehlen v. Melvin, 2012 ND 246, ¶ 16 , 823 N.W.2d 780 ; N.D.C.C. § 9-06-07. | 1 | 1 |
| Gunderson v. Burbidgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| National Cash Register Co. v. Midway City Creamery Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Dalheimer v. Luciagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Putnam v. Proutygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Herman Oil, Inc. v. Petermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wehner v. Schroedergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Verry v. Murphygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roberts v. First National Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tallackson Potato Co., Inc. v. MTK Potato Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Schwarting v. Schwartinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| People's State Bank v. Francisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dardis v. Eddy Brothersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hook v. Crarygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peoples Bank and Trust v. Reiffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Merwin v. Ziebarthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frohlich v. Metropolitan Chemical Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Thornton Construction Co. Inc. v. MacKinac Aggregates Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bolyea v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilton, NDgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Conrad Milwaukee Corp. v. Wasilewskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Farmers State Bank v. Keisergreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Des Lacs Valley Land Corp. v. Herzig
green
2 sentences2014This Court has explained the application of the parol evidence rule: “ ‘ “ “Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement:’ ... ‘all preliminary negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written contract ... and “unless fraud, accident, or mistake be averred, the writing constitutes the agreement between the parties, and its terms cannot be added to nor subtracted from by parol evidence.” ”” ” [ 2014This Court has explained the application of the parol evidence rule: “ ‘ “ “Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement:’ ... ‘all preliminary negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written contract ... and “unless fraud, accident, or mistake be averred, the writing constitutes the agreement between the parties, and its terms cannot be added to nor subtracted from by parol evidence.” ”” ” [ | 6 | 2003–2014 |
Finstad v. Gord
green
2 sentences2019E.g., Finstad v. Gord , 2014 ND 72 , ¶ 13, 844 N.W.2d 913 ; Myaer v. Nodak Mut. 2019E.g., Finstad v. Gord , 2014 ND 72 , ¶ 13, 844 N.W.2d 913 ; Myaer v. Nodak Mut. | 3 | 2014–2019 |
Silbernagel v. Silbernagel
green
2 sentences2012Ill [¶ 15] Ehlen contends the parol evidence rule and the statute of frauds bar the Melvins’ argument their changes to the “Purchase Agreement” and the “Amendment to Purchase Agreement” were a counteroffer. [¶ 16] In Silbemagel v. Silbemagel, 2007 ND 124, ¶12 , 736 N.W.2d 441 , we explained the parol evidence rule: The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law and precludes the use of evidence of prior oral negotiations and agreements to vary or add to the terms expressed in the written contract. 2012Ill [¶ 15] Ehlen contends the parol evidence rule and the statute of frauds bar the Melvins’ argument their changes to the “Purchase Agreement” and the “Amendment to Purchase Agreement” were a counteroffer. [¶ 16] In Silbemagel v. Silbemagel, 2007 ND 124, ¶12 , 736 N.W.2d 441 , we explained the parol evidence rule: The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law and precludes the use of evidence of prior oral negotiations and agreements to vary or add to the terms expressed in the written contract. | 3 | 2010–2012 |
Ives v. Hanson
green
2 sentences1974See also, Bolyea v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilton, N.D., 196 N.W.2d 149 (N.D.1972); Zimmer v. Bellon, 153 N.W.2d 757 (N.D.1967); Ives v. Hanson, 66 N.W.2d 802 (N.D.1954); Hanes v. Mitchell, supra. Second, we are satisfied that the testimony of Glenna and Lloyd Gajewski to the effect that they delivered the quitclaim deed to the plaintiffs on the condition that it was to be returned to them upon the payment of the debt secured thereby is equally incompetent and inadmissible under the parol evidence rule because our statute declares: “A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionall 1974Sections 9-07-04, 9-06-07 and 9-09-06, N.D.C.C.; Zimmer v. Bellon, 153 N.W.2d 757 (N.D.1967); First National Bank, Bismarck v. O’Callaghan, 143 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1966); Ives v. Hanson, 66 N.W.2d 802 (N.D.1954); Hanes v. Mitchell, 78 N.D. 341 , 49 N.W.2d 606 (1951); Forester v. Van Auken, 12 N.D. 175 , 96 N.W. 301 (1903). | 3 | 1967–1974 |
Evenson v. Quantum Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Under the circumstances, the court’s treatment of this case as a contract action as presented by the parties rather than as an action on the judgment is harmless error. [¶11] The parol evidence rule is partially codified in N.D.C.C. § 9-06-07: The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument. [¶12] In Evenson v. Quantum Indus., Inc. , 2004 ND 178, ¶ 11 , 687 N.W.2d 241 (internal citations omitted), this Court explained 2007Under the circumstances, the court’s treatment of this case as a contract action as presented by the parties rather than as an action on the judgment is harmless error. [¶11] The parol evidence rule is partially codified in N.D.C.C. § 9-06-07: The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument. [¶12] In Evenson v. Quantum Indus., Inc. , 2004 ND 178, ¶ 11 , 687 N.W.2d 241 (internal citations omitted), this Court explained | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Larson v. Wood
neutral
2 sentences1968Larson v. Wood, 75 N.D. 9 , 25 N.W.2d 100 ; Hanes v. Mitchell, 78 N.D. 341 , 49 N.W.2d 606 ; Mevorah v. Goodman, 79 N.D. 443 , 57 N.W.2d 600 , 49 A.L.R.2d 825 . *730 We have considered our decisions construing these statutes and cannot agree with counsel for respondent that the evidence adduced by Murphy should have been excluded under the parol-evidence rule. 1968Larson v. Wood, 75 N.D. 9 , 25 N.W.2d 100 ; Hanes v. Mitchell, 78 N.D. 341 , 49 N.W.2d 606 ; Mevorah v. Goodman, 79 N.D. 443 , 57 N.W.2d 600 , 49 A.L.R.2d 825 . *730 We have considered our decisions construing these statutes and cannot agree with counsel for respondent that the evidence adduced by Murphy should have been excluded under the parol-evidence rule. | 2 | 1968–2003 |
Odegaard v. Investors Oil, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991Odegaard v. Investors Oil, Inc., 118 N.W.2d 362 (N.D.1962). 1967In support of these arguments, plaintiffs cite, and rely upon mainly, Odegaard v. Investors Oil, Inc., N.D., 118 N.W.2d 362 ; Heinzeroth v. Bentz, N.D., 115 N.W.2d 611 ; Hoth v. Kahler, N.D., 74 N.W.2d 440 ; and Baldus v. Mattern, N.D., 93 N.W.2d 144 . ■ Doubtless in an appropriate case, it is correct, as claimed by the plaintiffs, that a memorandum of a contract to be sufficient under the statute of frauds may consist of any kind of document or documents, taken singly or together, if the terms of the contract are adequately disclosed thereby and if signed by the party to be charged with the c | 2 | 1967–1991 |
Mevorah v. Goodman
green
2 sentences1968Larson v. Wood, 75 N.D. 9 , 25 N.W.2d 100 ; Hanes v. Mitchell, 78 N.D. 341 , 49 N.W.2d 606 ; Mevorah v. Goodman, 79 N.D. 443 , 57 N.W.2d 600 , 49 A.L.R.2d 825 . *730 We have considered our decisions construing these statutes and cannot agree with counsel for respondent that the evidence adduced by Murphy should have been excluded under the parol-evidence rule. 1968Larson v. Wood, 75 N.D. 9 , 25 N.W.2d 100 ; Hanes v. Mitchell, 78 N.D. 341 , 49 N.W.2d 606 ; Mevorah v. Goodman, 79 N.D. 443 , 57 N.W.2d 600 , 49 A.L.R.2d 825 . *730 We have considered our decisions construing these statutes and cannot agree with counsel for respondent that the evidence adduced by Murphy should have been excluded under the parol-evidence rule. | 2 | 1968–1977 |
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1974Section 9-07-05, N.D.C.C.; Schue v. Jacoby, 162 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.1968); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Anderson, 155 N.W.2d 728 (N.D.1968); Wilson v. Polsfut, 78 N.D. 204 , 49 N.W.2d 102 (1951); Carufel v. Kounts, 60 N.D. 91 , 232 N.W. 609 (1930); Jasper v. Hazen, supra ; and (2) That, on the contrary, where, in an action at law or in equity, a deed or other written instrument is complete, unambiguous and absolute in its terms and there is no sufficient or specific allegation of fraud, mistake or accident in the complaint, answer or cross claim, the parol evidence rule, as we have defin 1974Section 9-07-05, N.D.C.C.; Schue v. Jacoby, 162 N.W.2d 377 (N.D.1968); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Anderson, 155 N.W.2d 728 (N.D.1968); Wilson v. Polsfut, 78 N.D. 204 , 49 N.W.2d 102 (1951); Carufel v. Kounts, 60 N.D. 91 , 232 N.W. 609 (1930); Jasper v. Hazen, supra; and (2) That, on the contrary, where, in an action at law or in equity, a deed or other written instrument is complete, unambiguous and absolute in its terms and there is no sufficient or specific allegation of fraud, mistake or accident in the complaint, answer or cross claim, the parol evidence rule, as we have define | 2 | 1968–1974 |
Alsterberg v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1967Alsterberg v. Bennett, 14 N.D. 596 , 106 N.W. 49 ; 23 Am.Jur.2d, Deeds, Section 271, page 305. 1967Alsterberg v. Bennett, 14 N.D. 596 , 106 N.W. 49 ; 23 Am.Jur.2d, Deeds, Section 271, page 305. | 2 | 1932–1967 |
Myaer v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2014Finstad, 2014 ND 72, ¶ 13 , 844 N.W.2d 913 ; Myaer, 2012 ND 21, ¶ 20 , 812 N.W.2d 345 . 2014Finstad, 2014 ND 72, ¶ 13 , 844 N.W.2d 913 ; Myaer, 2012 ND 21, ¶ 20 , 812 N.W.2d 345 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Poeppel v. Lester
green
2 sentences2014The court in Poeppel v. Lester, 2013 S.D. 17, ¶ 22 , 827 N.W.2d 580 , recently noted that “[a] substantial majority of jurisdictions follow the traditional, majority view that the parol evidence rule is inapplicable in cases of fraudulent inducement.” Thus, “parol or extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove fraud,” and “[t]he parol evidence rule is simply not applicable *552 when fraud has been employed as enticement to enter a contract.” Poeppel , at ¶20. 2014The court in Poeppel v. Lester, 2013 S.D. 17, ¶ 22 , 827 N.W.2d 580 , recently noted that “[a] substantial majority of jurisdictions follow the traditional, majority view that the parol evidence rule is inapplicable in cases of fraudulent inducement.” Thus, “parol or extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove fraud,” and “[t]he parol evidence rule is simply not applicable *552 when fraud has been employed as enticement to enter a contract.” Poeppel , at ¶20. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Krank v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014See Symington, 2010 ND 56, ¶20 , 780 N.W.2d 676 ; Krank, 456 N.W.2d at 130 ; Poeppel, 2013 S.D. 17, ¶ 20 , 827 N.W.2d 580 ; 6 Linzer, supra, § 25.20[A], at 277-79. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Kuntz v. Kuntz green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fladeland v. Gudbranson
green
2 sentences2013Elden and Rita Linderkamp argue the court erred in deciding there was no credible evidence of an oral agreement between Elden and Earl Linderkamp and the court erred in refusing to consider evidence of the oral agreement under the statute of frauds and the parol evidence rule. [2] [¶ 11] “The statute of frauds provides that an agreement for the sale of real property is ‘invalid, unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his agent.’” Fladeland v. Gudbranson, 2004 ND 118, ¶ 8 , 681 N.W.2d 431 (quoting Kuntz v. Kuntz, 1999 ND 2013Elden and Rita Linderkamp argue the court erred in deciding there was no credible evidence of an oral agreement between Elden and Earl Linderkamp and the court erred in refusing to consider evidence of the oral agreement under the statute of frauds and the parol evidence rule. [2] [¶ 11] “The statute of frauds provides that an agreement for the sale of real property is ‘invalid, unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his agent.’” Fladeland v. Gudbranson, 2004 ND 118, ¶ 8 , 681 N.W.2d 431 (quoting Kuntz v. Kuntz, 1999 ND | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Wadge v. Kittleson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Alerus Financial, N.A. v. Marcil Group Inc. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Alerus Financial v. Marcil Group green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Schmidkunz green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Grand Forks County Social Services v. T.L. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Syversen v. Hess green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Dawn Enterprises v. Luna green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Amoco Production Company, a Delaware Corporation v. Western Slope Gas Company, a Colorado Corporation green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Union State Bank v. Woell green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| City of Wahpeton v. Skoog green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Blackman v. Folsom green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Northwestern Equipment, Inc. v. Tentis green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Nelson v. Glasoe green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Watson v. Kresse green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| The Chase Manhattan Bank, a National Banking Association v. The First Marion Bank, a Banking Corporation green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Albers green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Sobolik v. Vavrowsky green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Smith v. Bear green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Higgs v. De Maziroff green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| City of Granville v. Kovash, Incorporated green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| James v. Young green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Forester v. Auken neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| First National Bank, Bismarck v. O'CALLAGHAN green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Wilson v. Polsfut neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Kittelson v. Collette neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.