6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morton County Board of Park Commissioners v. Wetschgreen2 sentences2013Moreover, even if Section 32-15-32 were applicable to preliminary proceedings seeking access for entry for survey, the *473 Smiths have not demonstrated they are entitled to attorney fees based on the discretionary factors set forth in Morton County Board of Park Commissioners v. Wetsch, 136 N.W.2d 158, 159 (N.D.1965). 2013The Smiths opposed Alliance’s right to entry even though the applicable statute clearly provides such a right in this circumstance. [¶ 24] In Morton County Bd. of Park Comm’rs v. Wetsch, 136 N.W.2d 158, 159 (N.D.1965), this Court described factors for consideration in awarding reasonable attorney fees in eminent domain cases, including “the character of the services rendered by the attorney, the results which the attorney obtained for his client, the customary fee charged for such services, and the ability and the skill of the attorney rendering the services.” Assuming a court may award attorn | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. City of Garrisongreen1 sentence2006We adopted the discretionary immunity test applied by the United States Supreme Court in Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 , 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), to decide whether a governmental act was immune under the Federal Tort Claims Act: (1) “ ‘whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting ■ employee,’ ” and (2) “ ‘whether that judgment [or choice] is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.’ ” Olson , at 666, 667 (quoting Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 ). | 1 | 1 |
Target Stores v. Automated Maintenance Services, Inc.green1 sentence1996See Belt at 119 (because case could be decided on other grounds, this Court declined to decide whether “governmental function” theory provides immunity from liability for negligence), III The Gehrkes apparently concede the district court did not err in dismissing their third-party complaint for contribution from Burlington Northern under Target Stores v. Automated Maintenance Services, Inc., 492 N.W.2d 899 (N.D.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Belt v. City of Grand Forksgreen1 sentence1996See Belt at 119 (because case could be decided on other grounds, this Court declined to decide whether “governmental function” theory provides immunity from liability for negligence), III The Gehrkes apparently concede the district court did not err in dismissing their third-party complaint for contribution from Burlington Northern under Target Stores v. Automated Maintenance Services, Inc., 492 N.W.2d 899 (N.D.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Wildman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1988See Wildman v. United States, 827 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir.1987); People of State of California v. Quechan Tribe of Indians, 595 F.2d 1153, 1155 (9th Cir.1979). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 364929green1 sentence1988See Wildman v. United States, 827 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir.1987); People of State of California v. Quechan Tribe of Indians, 595 F.2d 1153, 1155 (9th Cir.1979). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2018"Once the State move[s] for summary dismissal, [an applicant has] the burden to support his application with competent admissible evidence." Davis v. State , 2013 ND 34 , ¶ 11, 827 N.W.2d 8 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2018"Once the State move[s] for summary dismissal, [an applicant has] the burden to support his application with competent admissible evidence." Davis v. State , 2013 ND 34 , ¶ 11, 827 N.W.2d 8 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Berkovitz v. United States
green
2 sentences2006We adopted the discretionary immunity test applied by the United States Supreme Court in Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 , 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), to decide whether a governmental act was immune under the Federal Tort Claims Act: (1) “ ‘whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting ■ employee,’ ” and (2) “ ‘whether that judgment [or choice] is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.’ ” Olson , at 666, 667 (quoting Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 ). 2006We adopted the discretionary immunity test applied by the United States Supreme Court in Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 , 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), to decide whether a governmental act was immune under the Federal Tort Claims Act: (1) “ ‘whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting ■ employee,’ ” and (2) “ ‘whether that judgment [or choice] is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.’ ” Olson , at 666, 667 (quoting Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lohnes Ex Rel. Lohnes v. Cloud
green
1 sentence1992Lohnes v. Cloud, 254 N.W.2d 430 (N.D.1977). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.