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 1807–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neubauer v. Neubauergreen1 sentence2005Furthermore, while N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) ordinarily may not be used as a substitute for an appeal or to relieve a party from deliberate choices, Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wackier Invs., 2003 ND 100, ¶ 10 , 663 N.W.2d 204 , that “is not an inflexible rule and in unusual cases a party who has not taken an appeal may obtain relief on a 60(b) motion,” Neubauer v. Neubauer, 524 N.W.2d 593, 595 (N.D. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Hecker v. Stark County Social Service Boardgreen1 sentence2000In Hecker , the trust indicated the trust funds should be used "as the Trustee in the Trustee's sole discretion may from time to time deem necessary or advisable for the satisfaction of the beneficiary's special needs." 527 N.W.2d at 228 (emphasis added). *247 This Court did not conclude the beneficiary could compel the trustee to exercise discretion on the basis that his special needs were not being "satisfied," despite that this might be construed as a standard against which to judge the trustee's exercise of discretion as to expenditures for those special needs. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kopp v. Kopp
green
2 sentences2005Courts have an inherent power “to vacate or otherwise grant relief from a judgment in the interest of justice.” Kopp v. Kopp, 2001 ND 41, ¶ 9 , 622 N.W.2d 726 . [¶ 13] From our review of the record, we conclude Judge Dawson did not abuse *559 her discretion in granting Elizabeth On-stad’s motion for reconsideration and granting a new hearing on the issue of whom to appoint as Doris Onstad’s guardian. 2005Courts have an inherent power “to vacate or otherwise grant relief from a judgment in the interest of justice.” Kopp v. Kopp, 2001 ND 41, ¶ 9 , 622 N.W.2d 726 . [¶ 13] From our review of the record, we conclude Judge Dawson did not abuse *559 her discretion in granting Elizabeth On-stad’s motion for reconsideration and granting a new hearing on the issue of whom to appoint as Doris Onstad’s guardian. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Investments
green
2 sentences2005Furthermore, while N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) ordinarily may not be used as a substitute for an appeal or to relieve a party from deliberate choices, Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wackier Invs., 2003 ND 100, ¶ 10 , 663 N.W.2d 204 , that “is not an inflexible rule and in unusual cases a party who has not taken an appeal may obtain relief on a 60(b) motion,” Neubauer v. Neubauer, 524 N.W.2d 593, 595 (N.D. 1994). 2005Furthermore, while N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) ordinarily may not be used as a substitute for an appeal or to relieve a party from deliberate choices, Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wackier Invs., 2003 ND 100, ¶ 10 , 663 N.W.2d 204 , that “is not an inflexible rule and in unusual cases a party who has not taken an appeal may obtain relief on a 60(b) motion,” Neubauer v. Neubauer, 524 N.W.2d 593, 595 (N.D. 1994). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Ramey
green
2 sentences1980Poor judgment does not excuse such an inflexible rule.” In Columbus Bar Association v. Ramey, 32 Ohio St.2d 91 , 290 N.E.2d 831 (1972), the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that an attorney’s conduct in preparing a trust and will, through which he stood to inherit all the testatrix’s property, violated Ethical Consideration 5-5. 1980Poor judgment does not excuse such an inflexible rule.” In Columbus Bar Association v. Ramey, 32 Ohio St.2d 91 , 290 N.E.2d 831 (1972), the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that an attorney’s conduct in preparing a trust and will, through which he stood to inherit all the testatrix’s property, violated Ethical Consideration 5-5. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Minnesota Baptist Convention v. Pillsbury Academy
green
2 sentences1979Minnesota Baptist Convention v. Pillsbury Academy, 246 Minn. 46 , 74 N.W.2d 286 ; Phelps v. Benson, 252 Minn. 457 , 90 N.W.2d 533 . 1979Minnesota Baptist Convention v. Pillsbury Academy, 246 Minn. 46 , 74 N.W.2d 286 ; Phelps v. Benson, 252 Minn. 457 , 90 N.W.2d 533 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Phelps v. Benson
green
2 sentences1979Minnesota Baptist Convention v. Pillsbury Academy, 246 Minn. 46 , 74 N.W.2d 286 ; Phelps v. Benson, 252 Minn. 457 , 90 N.W.2d 533 . 1979Minnesota Baptist Convention v. Pillsbury Academy, 246 Minn. 46 , 74 N.W.2d 286 ; Phelps v. Benson, 252 Minn. 457 , 90 N.W.2d 533 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Giffert v. West
neutral
1 sentence1904Mechem on Sales, section 1296, lays down the rule as follows: “Implied warranties can ordinarily arise only where the parties have not themselves created an express warranty relating to the same subject-matter, though this, as has been seen, is not an inflexible rule, and will yield to evidence that the parties intended both to operate, as where the express is clearly described to be in addition to that which the law alone would imply.” In Giffert v. West, 37 Wis. 115 , it wa-s said: “Undoubtedly, as was held on the former appeal, an express warranty, in such a case, may be so framed as to res | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Blackmore v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.
green
1 sentence1904Mechem on Sales, section 1296, lays down the rule as follows: “Implied warranties can ordinarily arise only where the parties have not themselves created an express warranty relating to the same subject-matter, though this, as has been seen, is not an inflexible rule, and will yield to evidence that the parties intended both to operate, as where the express is clearly described to be in addition to that which the law alone would imply.” In Giffert v. West, 37 Wis. 115 , it wa-s said: “Undoubtedly, as was held on the former appeal, an express warranty, in such a case, may be so framed as to res | 1 | 1904–1904 |
State v. Coudotte
green
1 sentence1807But, tested by an inflexible rule of law, that testimony cannot support a conviction. ( 72 N. W. | 1 | 1807–1807 |
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.