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.
6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krile v. Lawyergreen1 sentence2026All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion. 10 “In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), district courts may consider, in addition to the pleadings, materials embraced by the pleadings and materials that are part of the public record, without converting the motion to a summary judgment under Rule 56.” Krile v. Lawyer, 2020 ND 176, ¶ 13 (cleaned up). [¶30] Here, the district court concluded “even under the highly deferential standard” Sanderson’s complaint must be dismissed for lack of a factual basis supporting the a | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2019State v. Carpenter , 2011 ND 20 , ¶ 5, 793 N.W.2d 765 . 2019State v. Carpenter, 2011 ND 20, ¶ 5 , 793 N.W.2d 765 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2019State v. Carpenter , 2011 ND 20 , ¶ 5, 793 N.W.2d 765 . 2019State v. Carpenter, 2011 ND 20, ¶ 5 , 793 N.W.2d 765 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Lagro v. Lagro
green
2 sentences2009Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4), a party seeking a custody modification must establish a prima facie ease justifying a modification before even being entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify custody. [¶ 30] In Lagro , our Court considered the standard of review of a trial court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify custody and concluded the appropriate standard of review was an abuse of discretion. 2005 ND 151 , 703 N.W.2d 322 . 2009Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(4), a party seeking a custody modification must establish a prima facie ease justifying a modification before even being entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify custody. [¶ 30] In Lagro , our Court considered the standard of review of a trial court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify custody and concluded the appropriate standard of review was an abuse of discretion. 2005 ND 151 , 703 N.W.2d 322 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
People to Save the Sheyenne River, Inc. v. North Dakota Department of Health
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.