51 North Dakota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Union State Bank v. Woellgreen2 sentences2018See Woell , 357 N.W.2d at 236 -37 . 2018See Woell , 357 N.W.2d at 236-37 . | 4 | 4 |
Thompson v. Petersongreen2 sentences2018"Although not binding, federal court interpretations of a corresponding federal rule of civil procedure are highly persuasive in construing our rule." Thompson v. Peterson , 546 N.W.2d 856 , 860 (N.D. 1996). 2006This Court again emphasized that Rule 56(f) needed to be applied with "`a spirit of liberality.'" Id. at ¶ 6 (quoting Johnson Farms, 1997 ND 179, ¶ 29 , 568 N.W.2d 920 ). [¶ 12] "Although not binding, federal court interpretations of a corresponding federal rule of civil procedure are highly persuasive in construing our rule." Thompson v. Peterson, 546 N.W.2d 856, 860 (N.D.1996). | 3 | 4 |
Shark v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1990We also said that “[cjoun-sel’s misunderstanding of the rules or a mistaken belief that no demand was necessary amounts to mere inadvertence.” Shark v. Thompson, supra, 373 N.W.2d at 864 , citing Beckham v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 691 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1982), and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Jeppesen & Co., 642 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1981). 1990E.g., Shark v. Thompson, 373 N.W.2d 859, 863 (N.D.1985). | 3 | 4 |
Chiglo v. City of Prestongreen2 sentences2021We further explained that “[u]nder Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2), upon a timely motion, a person is entitled to intervene as of right if: (1) the person has a cognizable interest in the subject matter of the litigation; (2) the interest may be impaired as a result of the litigation; and (3) the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party to the litigation.” White, at ¶ 21 (citing Chiglo v. City of Preston, 104 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); Kansas Pub. 2017We said that “[u]nder Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2), upon a timely motion, a person is entitled to intervene as of right if: (1) the person has a cognizable interest in the subject matter of thé litigation; (2) the interest may be impaired as a result of the litigation; and-(3) the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party to the litigation.” White , at ¶ 21 (citing Chiglo v. City of Preston, 104 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); Kansas Pub. | 3 | 3 |
Braatelien v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2017Bd. of Supervisors, 2006 ND 214, ¶ 13 , 723 N.W.2d 112 ; Skogen , at ¶ 7; Braatelien v. *262 Burns, 74 N.D. 29, 32 , 19 N.W.2d 827, 828 (1945). [¶14] In White, 2015 ND 118, ¶ 20 , 863 N.W.2d 915 , we said N.D.R.Civ.P. 24 4s derived from and is substantially similar to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, and when a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule. 2017Bd. of Supervisors, 2006 ND 214, ¶ 13 , 723 N.W.2d 112 ; Skogen , at ¶ 7; Braatelien v. *262 Burns, 74 N.D. 29, 32 , 19 N.W.2d 827, 828 (1945). [¶14] In White, 2015 ND 118, ¶ 20 , 863 N.W.2d 915 , we said N.D.R.Civ.P. 24 4s derived from and is substantially similar to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, and when a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Gilmoregreen2 sentences2013See, e.g. , United States v. Gilmore , 553 F.3d 266, 271-72 (3rd Cir. 2009) (Fed. 2013See, e.g., United States v. Gilmore, 553 F.3d 266, 271-72 (3rd Cir.2009) (Fed. | 2 | 2 |
North Shore, Inc. v. Wakefieldgreen2 sentences1998North Shore, Inc. v. Wakefield, 542 N.W.2d 725, 727 (N.D.1996) (noting also that a North Dakota court will give deference to an interpretation of the Federal Rule 60 when it construes our own rule); Explanatory Note to Rule 60, N.D. 1998North Shore, Inc. v. Wakefield , 542 N.W.2d 725, 727 (N.D. 1996) (noting also that a North Dakota court will give deference to an interpretation of the Federal Rule 60 when it construes our own rule); Explanatory Note to Rule 60, N.D. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mankegreen2 sentences1995E.g., State v. Manke, 328 N.W.2d 799 (N.D.1982). 1985See State v. Manke, 328 N.W.2d 799 (N.D.1982). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Howard Kenneth Smithgreen1 sentence2025“For a dismissal to be ‘clearly contrary to manifest public interest,’ the prosecutor must have had an illegitimate motive rising to the level of bad faith.” United States v. Bernard, 42 F.4th 905, 909 (8th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1995) (“A motion that is not motivated by bad faith is not clearly contrary to manifest public interest, and it must be granted.”); United States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The presumption that the prosecutor is the best judge of the public interest is rebutted when the motion to dismiss contravenes | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Juan Salinasgreen1 sentence2025“For a dismissal to be ‘clearly contrary to manifest public interest,’ the prosecutor must have had an illegitimate motive rising to the level of bad faith.” United States v. Bernard, 42 F.4th 905, 909 (8th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1995) (“A motion that is not motivated by bad faith is not clearly contrary to manifest public interest, and it must be granted.”); United States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The presumption that the prosecutor is the best judge of the public interest is rebutted when the motion to dismiss contravenes | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Tiffany Bernardgreen1 sentence2025“For a dismissal to be ‘clearly contrary to manifest public interest,’ the prosecutor must have had an illegitimate motive rising to the level of bad faith.” United States v. Bernard, 42 F.4th 905, 909 (8th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1995) (“A motion that is not motivated by bad faith is not clearly contrary to manifest public interest, and it must be granted.”); United States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The presumption that the prosecutor is the best judge of the public interest is rebutted when the motion to dismiss contravenes | 1 | 1 |
In Re: United States of Americagreen1 sentence2025“For a dismissal to be ‘clearly contrary to manifest public interest,’ the prosecutor must have had an illegitimate motive rising to the level of bad faith.” United States v. Bernard, 42 F.4th 905, 909 (8th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1995) (“A motion that is not motivated by bad faith is not clearly contrary to manifest public interest, and it must be granted.”); United States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 1982) (“The presumption that the prosecutor is the best judge of the public interest is rebutted when the motion to dismiss contravenes | 1 | 1 |
Blair v. City of Worcestergreen1 sentence2020Grp. v. Schellpfeffer, 2006 ND 87, ¶ 12 , 712 N.W.2d 855 (“Although not binding, federal court interpretations of a corresponding federal rule of civil procedure are highly persuasive in construing our rule.”). [¶17] For example, in Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105, 110 (1st Cir. 2008), the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ original action for insufficient service of process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5). | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Abex Corp.green2 sentences2010See, e.g., Black v. Abex Corp., 1999 ND 236, ¶ 18 , 603 N.W.2d 182 . 2010See, e.g., Black v. Abex Corp., 1999 ND 236, ¶ 18 , 603 N.W.2d 182 . | 1 | 1 |
Lunderstadt v. Colafellagreen1 sentence2006Although failure to comply with the affidavit requirement of Rule 56(f) is not fatal to a request for additional discovery, a proponent of the request must still "identify with specificity `what particular information is sought; how, if uncovered, it would preclude summary judgment; and why it has not previously been obtained.'" Lunderstadt v. Colafella, 885 F.2d 66, 71 (3d Cir.1989) (quoting Dowling v. City of Phila., 855 F.2d 136 , 140 (3d Cir.1988)). [¶ 13] As in Aho , Schellpfeffer's counsel argued at the summary judgment hearing that the discovery to that point had been insufficient to co | 1 | 1 |
Gonzalez v. Tounjiangreen2 sentences2005See Gonzalez v. Tounjian, 2004 ND 156, ¶ 12 , 684 N.W.2d 653 . 2005See Gonzalez v. Tounjian, 2004 ND 156, ¶ 12 , 684 N.W.2d 653 . | 1 | 1 |
| Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelingreen | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Mackey International, Inc.green1 sentence2003This procedure is directly contrary to the command of subdivision (c)(1) that the court determine whether a suit denominated a class action may be maintained as such “[a]s soon as practicable after the commencement of [the] action.... ” See N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1) (court shall determine whether to certify as a class action “as soon as practicable after the commencement of a class action”); see also 7B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1785 (2d ed.1986). [¶ 20] The Supreme Court in Eisen, at 178, 94 S.Ct. 2140 specifically agreed with the rationale of the United States | 1 | 1 |
| Patricia Fuller v. City of Oakland, California George Hart Antonio Romerogreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 409634green | 1 | 1 |
| John J. Dell'orfano v. Salvatore Romano Captain Wilcenski Sgt. Bennett Investigator Sanacrosegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Southland Reship, Inc. v. S. Leslie Flegel, Individually and D/B/A Periodical Sales of Americagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ricks v. Abbott Laboratoriesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Silber v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wayne-Juntunen Fertilizer Co. v. Lassondegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aaron M. Deroo v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| O'Sullivan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Harpgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Keyes v. Amundsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Continental Casualty Co. v. Kinseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rommie STULTS and Stephen Wallace, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONOCO, INC. and Brad Burmaster, Defendants-Appelleesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davenportgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kolobakkengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Donna Crossman v. Michael Marcocciogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. JHJ Ltd. Igreen | 1 | 1 |
| Potenze v. New York Shipping Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Octopi, Inc. v. Courtneygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oliver E. Johnson v. John F. Lehman, Jr., Secretary of the Navy. Oliver E. Johnson v. John F. Lehman, Jr., Secretary of the Navygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holly Shipp v. General Motors Corporationgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. T.P. Motel, L.L.C.
neutral
2 sentences2021Grand Forks Bean, at ¶ 15. [¶11] In White, 2015 ND 118, ¶ 20 , this Court said N.D.R.Civ.P. 24 “is derived from and substantially similar to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24,” and “[w]hen a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule.” See also Fisher, 546 N.W.2d at 355 . 2017Motel, L.L.C. , 2015 ND 118, ¶ 20 , 863 N.W.2d 915 (“When a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule.”). | 6 | 2015–2021 |
Fisher v. Fisher
green
2 sentences2021Grand Forks Bean, at ¶ 15. [¶11] In White, 2015 ND 118, ¶ 20 , this Court said N.D.R.Civ.P. 24 “is derived from and substantially similar to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24,” and “[w]hen a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule.” See also Fisher, 546 N.W.2d at 355 . 2015Id. | 2 | 2015–2021 |
Choice Financial Group v. Schellpfeffer
green
2 sentences2020Grp. v. Schellpfeffer, 2006 ND 87, ¶ 12 , 712 N.W.2d 855 (“Although not binding, federal court interpretations of a corresponding federal rule of civil procedure are highly persuasive in construing our rule.”). [¶17] For example, in Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105, 110 (1st Cir. 2008), the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ original action for insufficient service of process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5). 2020Grp. v. Schellpfeffer, 2006 ND 87, ¶ 12 , 712 N.W.2d 855 (“Although not binding, federal court interpretations of a corresponding federal rule of civil procedure are highly persuasive in construing our rule.”). [¶17] For example, in Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105, 110 (1st Cir. 2008), the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ original action for insufficient service of process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5). | 2 | 2016–2020 |
Foman v. Davis
green
2 sentences2018As the United States Supreme Court noted in Foman v. Davis , undue delay may justify a denial of a motion to amend. 371 U.S. 178 , 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). 2018As the United States Supreme Court noted in Foman v. Davis , undue delay may justify a denial of a motion to amend. 371 U.S. 178 , 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). | 2 | 2006–2018 |
Eichhorn v. The Waldo Township Bd. of Supervisors
green
2 sentences2017Bd. of Supervisors, 2006 ND 214, ¶ 13 , 723 N.W.2d 112 ; Skogen , at ¶ 7; Braatelien v. *262 Burns, 74 N.D. 29, 32 , 19 N.W.2d 827, 828 (1945). [¶14] In White, 2015 ND 118, ¶ 20 , 863 N.W.2d 915 , we said N.D.R.Civ.P. 24 4s derived from and is substantially similar to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, and when a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule. 2017Bd. of Supervisors, 2006 ND 214, ¶ 13 , 723 N.W.2d 112 ; Skogen , at ¶ 7; Braatelien v. *262 Burns, 74 N.D. 29, 32 , 19 N.W.2d 827, 828 (1945). [¶14] In White, 2015 ND 118, ¶ 20 , 863 N.W.2d 915 , we said N.D.R.Civ.P. 24 4s derived from and is substantially similar to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, and when a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Rodriguez
neutral
2 sentences2025Federal cases interpreting Rule 48 provide us with a background and helpful framework for the application of this rule.” 484 N.W.2d at 858 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 48, Explanatory Note (“Rule 48 is adapted from the federal rule.”); State v. Rodriguez, 2022 ND 102, ¶ 16 , 974 N.W.2d 368 (“When a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ 8 interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule.”). 2025Federal cases interpreting Rule 48 provide us with a background and helpful framework for the application of this rule.” 484 N.W.2d at 858 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 48, Explanatory Note (“Rule 48 is adapted from the federal rule.”); State v. Rodriguez, 2022 ND 102, ¶ 16 , 974 N.W.2d 368 (“When a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ 8 interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule.”). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Ex Rel. Koppy v. Graff
green
1 sentence2025Federal cases interpreting Rule 48 provide us with a background and helpful framework for the application of this rule.” 484 N.W.2d at 858 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 48, Explanatory Note (“Rule 48 is adapted from the federal rule.”); State v. Rodriguez, 2022 ND 102, ¶ 16 , 974 N.W.2d 368 (“When a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ 8 interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule.”). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Disciplinary Action Against McDonald
green
1 sentence2021Although the disciplinary proceeding was quasi-judicial, this Court interpreted N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(a) stating, “Technically a party waives the right to a judgment as a matter of law if the motion is made at the close of the opponent’s case, and thereafter the moving party introduces evidence on its own behalf.” Id. (quoting 9A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2534, at p. 322 (1995)). [¶10] “When a state rule is derived from a corresponding federal rule, the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal rule may be persuasive authority when interpreting our rule.” White | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. World University Inc., Santa Barbara Center Corporation
green
1 sentence2018Inc. , 978 F.2d 10 , 16 (1st Cir. 1992) (stating these motions under the corresponding federal rule are for reconsideration and not initial consideration, and parties should not use them to raise arguments which could have been made before judgment issued). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel
green
1 sentence2017The court concluded “there is a risk of substantial prejudice to the United States—including both its mineral interests and its sovereignty—if this matter proceeds in its absence, and therefore the first factor favors dismissal.” The court rejected Statoil’s focus on the absence of prejudice to the defendants, concluding “[r]egardless of whether the Moving Defendants will be prejudiced, the impact on the United States suggests this case should be dismissed.” [¶8] Statoil argues the district court misconstrued the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Pimentel , 553 U.S. 851 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Johnson Farms v. McEnroe
green
2 sentences2006This Court again emphasized that Rule 56(f) needed to be applied with "`a spirit of liberality.'" Id. at ¶ 6 (quoting Johnson Farms, 1997 ND 179, ¶ 29 , 568 N.W.2d 920 ). [¶ 12] "Although not binding, federal court interpretations of a corresponding federal rule of civil procedure are highly persuasive in construing our rule." Thompson v. Peterson, 546 N.W.2d 856, 860 (N.D.1996). 2006This Court again emphasized that Rule 56(f) needed to be applied with "`a spirit of liberality.'" Id. at ¶ 6 (quoting Johnson Farms, 1997 ND 179, ¶ 29 , 568 N.W.2d 920 ). [¶ 12] "Although not binding, federal court interpretations of a corresponding federal rule of civil procedure are highly persuasive in construing our rule." Thompson v. Peterson, 546 N.W.2d 856, 860 (N.D.1996). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Weigel v. Weigel
green
2 sentences2006Weigel v. Weigel, 1999 ND 55, ¶ 7 , 591 N.W.2d 123 . 2006Weigel v. Weigel, 1999 ND 55, ¶ 7 , 591 N.W.2d 123 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dowling v. City Of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence2006Although failure to comply with the affidavit requirement of Rule 56(f) is not fatal to a request for additional discovery, a proponent of the request must still "identify with specificity `what particular information is sought; how, if uncovered, it would preclude summary judgment; and why it has not previously been obtained.'" Lunderstadt v. Colafella, 885 F.2d 66, 71 (3d Cir.1989) (quoting Dowling v. City of Phila., 855 F.2d 136 , 140 (3d Cir.1988)). [¶ 13] As in Aho , Schellpfeffer's counsel argued at the summary judgment hearing that the discovery to that point had been insufficient to co | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Fisher v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Burger neutral | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Strutz green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Strom-Sell v. COUNCIL FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS, INC. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Burke green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Jones v. United States green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Henderson v. Kibbe green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Thomas v. Stickland green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Larson v. Unlimited Business Exchange of North Dakota, Inc. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Neset green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Victory Park Apartments, Inc. v. Axelson green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Copeland green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Tylo Sauna, S.A. v. Amerec Corporation green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Rados v. Celotex Corporation green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Emerson Emory v. Secretary of the Navy green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Jensen green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, a Connecticut Corporation v. Jeppesen & Company, a Colorado Corporation green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Joanne Beckham v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, a Corporation green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Land Office Co. v. Clapp-Thomssen Co. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Valgren green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Leo Lumber Company v. Williams green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Bragalini v. Biblowitz green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Sam Rabin v. Henry Cohen, B & H Processing Co., and Peterson Manufacturing Co., Inc. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.