6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinezgreen2 sentences1999Id. at 168-69 , 83 S.Ct. 554 (footnotes omitted) (brackets added). 1999Id. at 168-69 , 83 S.Ct. 554 (footnotes omitted) (brackets added). | 1 | 2 |
Grinaker v. Grinakergreen2 sentences2014And I feel at this time I have heard more than enough to factor that small piece of the pie into the equation. [¶ 14] “An abuse of discretion is never assumed; the burden is upon the party seeking relief to affirmatively establish it.... [A] trial court abuses its discretion only when it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination.” Grinaker v. Grinaker, 553 N.W.2d 204, 207 (N.D.1996). [¶ 15] We conclude the court’s decision to not allow the child to testify a second time 2014And I feel at this time I have heard more than enough to factor that small piece of the pie into the equation. [¶14] “An abuse of discretion is never assumed; the burden is upon the party seeking relief to affirmatively establish it. . . . [A] trial court abuses its discretion only when it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination.” Grinaker v. Grinaker , 553 N.W.2d 204, 207 (N.D. 1996). [¶15] We conclude the court’s decision to not allow the child to testify a second ti | 1 | 1 |
Hegge v. Heggegreen1 sentence1981The findings of fact are not “grossly inadequate.” See Hegge v. Hegge, 236 N.W.2d 910, 914 (N.D.1975). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Venn v. Howell's Auto Repair Center, Inc. (In Re Howell)
green
1 sentence1995In re All American Manufacturing Corp., supra; In re Howell, supra. The trial court considered numerous factors in concluding that the agreement here created a security interest rather than a true lease, including: Heritage was to insure, maintain, and repair the property; Heritage was to pay taxes on the property; and, Heritage bore the risk of loss or damage to the property. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Mertz v. Mertz
green
1 sentence1990Id. at 128 ; Mertz, 439 N.W.2d at 96 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Lapp v. Lapp
green
1 sentence1990Id. at 128 ; Mertz, 439 N.W.2d at 96 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Ellendale Farmers Union Cooperative Ass'n v. Davis
green
1 sentence1981The Court further finds, that the other enumerated factors outlined in § 14r-09-06.2 are equal between both of the parties.” Although we think that more artfully drafted findings of fact would more clearly provide the explicit basis for the trial court’s determination, Ellendale Farmers Union Cooperative Ass’n v. Davis, 219 N.W.2d 829 (N.D.1974), we believe that we understand what the trial court intended with respect to each of the 10 factors listed in § 14-09-06.2. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.