6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1955–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp.green2 sentences2003See Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1285 (Ind.1999) (holding that the statute of repose as applied to this particular plaintiff violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution because the misdiagnosed plaintiff had a disease with a long latency period which prevented her from discovering the malpractice within the statutory two-year period); McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp., 799 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky.1990) (holding that the five-year medical malpractice state of repose violated the open courts provisions of the state constitution); Hardy v. VerMeul 2003See Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1285 (Ind.1999) (holding that the statute of repose as applied to this particular plaintiff violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution because the misdiagnosed plaintiff had a disease with a long latency period which prevented her from discovering the malpractice within the statutory two-year period); McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp., 799 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky.1990) (holding that the five-year medical malpractice state of repose violated the open courts provisions of the state constitution); Hardy v. VerMeul | 1 | 1 |
DeYoung v. Providence Medical Centergreen2 sentences2003Ctr., 136 Wash.2d 136 , 960 P.2d 919, 924-26 (1998) (applying the rational basis test in holding Washington’s eight-year medical malpractice statute of repose violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution). 2003See Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1285 (Ind.1999) (holding that the statute of repose as applied to this particular plaintiff violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution because the misdiagnosed plaintiff had a disease with a long latency period which prevented her from discovering the malpractice within the statutory two-year period); McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp., 799 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky.1990) (holding that the five-year medical malpractice state of repose violated the open courts provisions of the state constitution); Hardy v. VerMeul | 1 | 1 |
Hardy v. VerMeulenred2 sentences2003See Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1285 (Ind.1999) (holding that the statute of repose as applied to this particular plaintiff violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution because the misdiagnosed plaintiff had a disease with a long latency period which prevented her from discovering the malpractice within the statutory two-year period); McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp., 799 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky.1990) (holding that the five-year medical malpractice state of repose violated the open courts provisions of the state constitution); Hardy v. VerMeul 2003See Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1285 (Ind.1999) (holding that the statute of repose as applied to this particular plaintiff violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution because the misdiagnosed plaintiff had a disease with a long latency period which prevented her from discovering the malpractice within the statutory two-year period); McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp., 799 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky.1990) (holding that the five-year medical malpractice state of repose violated the open courts provisions of the state constitution); Hardy v. VerMeul | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Richeygreen2 sentences2003See Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1285 (Ind.1999) (holding that the statute of repose as applied to this particular plaintiff violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution because the misdiagnosed plaintiff had a disease with a long latency period which prevented her from discovering the malpractice within the statutory two-year period); McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp., 799 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky.1990) (holding that the five-year medical malpractice state of repose violated the open courts provisions of the state constitution); Hardy v. VerMeul 2003See Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1285 (Ind.1999) (holding that the statute of repose as applied to this particular plaintiff violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution because the misdiagnosed plaintiff had a disease with a long latency period which prevented her from discovering the malpractice within the statutory two-year period); McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp., 799 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky.1990) (holding that the five-year medical malpractice state of repose violated the open courts provisions of the state constitution); Hardy v. VerMeul | 1 | 1 |
Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examinersgreen2 sentences1993Were we to reach the constitutional issue of whether or not the "ten or more” restriction constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or of the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, Swenson would have the burden of overcoming the principle first enunciated and applied by the United States Supreme Court in McGowan v. State of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 426 n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961) (citing Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 , 5 1993Were we to reach the constitutional issue of whether or not the "ten or more” restriction constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or of the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, Swenson would have the burden of overcoming the principle first enunciated and applied by the United States Supreme Court in McGowan v. State of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 426 n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961) (citing Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 , 5 | 1 | 1 |
Reiling v. Bhattacharyyagreen1 sentence1993See City of Mandan v. Mi-Jon News, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 540 (N.D.1986), and Reiling v. Bhattacharyya, 276 N.W.2d 237 (N.D.1979), for an evolutionary analysis. [3] Were we to reach the constitutional issue of whether or not the "ten or more" restriction constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or of the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, Swenson would have the burden of overcoming the principle first enunciated and applied by the United States Supreme Court in McGow | 1 | 1 |
McGowan v. Marylandgreen2 sentences1993Were we to reach the constitutional issue of whether or not the "ten or more” restriction constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or of the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, Swenson would have the burden of overcoming the principle first enunciated and applied by the United States Supreme Court in McGowan v. State of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 426 n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961) (citing Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 , 5 1993Were we to reach the constitutional issue of whether or not the "ten or more” restriction constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or of the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, Swenson would have the burden of overcoming the principle first enunciated and applied by the United States Supreme Court in McGowan v. State of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 426 n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961) (citing Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 , 5 | 1 | 1 |
City of Mandan v. Mi-Jon News, Inc.green1 sentence1993See City of Mandan v. Mi-Jon News, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 540 (N.D.1986), and Reiling v. Bhattacharyya, 276 N.W.2d 237 (N.D.1979), for an evolutionary analysis. [3] Were we to reach the constitutional issue of whether or not the "ten or more" restriction constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or of the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, Swenson would have the burden of overcoming the principle first enunciated and applied by the United States Supreme Court in McGow | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc.green2 sentences1993Were we to reach the constitutional issue of whether or not the "ten or more” restriction constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or of the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, Swenson would have the burden of overcoming the principle first enunciated and applied by the United States Supreme Court in McGowan v. State of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 426 n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961) (citing Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 , 5 1993See City of Mandan v. Mi-Jon News, Inc., 381 N.W.2d 540 (N.D.1986), and Reiling v. Bhattacharyya, 276 N.W.2d 237 (N.D.1979), for an evolutionary analysis. [3] Were we to reach the constitutional issue of whether or not the "ten or more" restriction constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or of the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, Swenson would have the burden of overcoming the principle first enunciated and applied by the United States Supreme Court in McGow | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bouchard v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2008Bouchard, 555 N.W.2d at 87 . 2008Bouchard, 555 N.W.2d at 87 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
DeYoung v. Providence Medical Center
green
2 sentences2003Ctr., 136 Wash.2d 136 , 960 P.2d 919, 924-26 (1998) (applying the rational basis test in holding Washington’s eight-year medical malpractice statute of repose violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution). 2003See Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1285 (Ind.1999) (holding that the statute of repose as applied to this particular plaintiff violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution because the misdiagnosed plaintiff had a disease with a long latency period which prevented her from discovering the malpractice within the statutory two-year period); McCollum v. Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Health Corp., 799 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky.1990) (holding that the five-year medical malpractice state of repose violated the open courts provisions of the state constitution); Hardy v. VerMeul | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Toomer v. Witsell
green
2 sentences1977The Supreme Court in Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 , 68 S.Ct. 1156 , 92 L.Ed. 1460 (1948), in discussing the purpose of the privileges and immunities clause of Article 4, § 2, stated the following: “The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located^ — those relating to full faith and credit and to interstate extradition of fugitives from justice — was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent, sovereign States. 1977The Supreme Court in Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 , 68 S.Ct. 1156 , 92 L.Ed. 1460 (1948), in discussing the purpose of the privileges and immunities clause of Article 4, § 2, stated the following: “The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located^ — those relating to full faith and credit and to interstate extradition of fugitives from justice — was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent, sovereign States. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
City of Denver v. Bossie
green
2 sentences1955City and County of Denver v. Bossie, 83 Colo. 329 , 266 P. 214, 217 , involved a statute that required the city to use materials purchased in Colorado. 1955City and County of Denver v. Bossie, 83 Colo. 329 , 266 P. 214, 217 , involved a statute that required the city to use materials purchased in Colorado. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Heim v. McCall
green
2 sentences1955In Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175 , 36 S.Ct. 78 , 60 L.Ed. 206 , Ann.Cas. 1917B, 287, it was held that the provisions of a New York Labor Law that only citizens of the United States shall be employed on public works and that preference shall be given to citi *668 zens of the State of New York were not unconstitutional as violative of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the United States or the equal protection or due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1955In Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175 , 36 S.Ct. 78 , 60 L.Ed. 206 , Ann.Cas. 1917B, 287, it was held that the provisions of a New York Labor Law that only citizens of the United States shall be employed on public works and that preference shall be given to citi *668 zens of the State of New York were not unconstitutional as violative of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the United States or the equal protection or due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
green
2 sentences1955We now turn to a consideration of a case quoted in the trial court’s memorandum opinion and in the plaintiff’s brief, Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 184 Cal. 26 , 192 P. 1021 , 12 A.L.R. 1190 , wherein it was held that a Workmen’s Compensation Act which extended its protection to residents of California injured in other states while working under contracts entered into in California without extending the same protection to nonresidents working under similiar contracts violated the privileges and immunities clause of the federal constitution. 1955We now turn to a consideration of a case quoted in the trial court’s memorandum opinion and in the plaintiff’s brief, Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 184 Cal. 26 , 192 P. 1021 , 12 A.L.R. 1190 , wherein it was held that a Workmen’s Compensation Act which extended its protection to residents of California injured in other states while working under contracts entered into in California without extending the same protection to nonresidents working under similiar contracts violated the privileges and immunities clause of the federal constitution. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.