6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1892–1989 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holzmeyer v. Van Dorengreen2 sentences1989The soundness of the rule is explained with eloquent simplicity in Holzmeyer v. Van Doren, 172 Or. 176 , 139 P.2d 778, 784 (1943): “All men may make mistakes, and the law would lose much of the respect which is now accorded to it if it compelled a man to persist in his mistakes when he can be relieved therefrom without injuring the interests of anyone. 1989The soundness of the rule is explained with eloquent simplicity in Holzmeyer v. Van Doren, 172 Or. 176 , 139 P.2d 778, 784 (1943): “All men may make mistakes, and the law would lose much of the respect which is now accorded to it if it compelled a man to persist in his mistakes when he can be relieved therefrom without injuring the interests of anyone. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fisher v. Kelly
green
1 sentence1975Nevertheless, our observation as to the soundness of the rule seems to be verified as shown by the following quotation from Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 2438, at pages 124-125: “The generally accepted law is sufficiently outlined in the following passage: “ ‘1896, Wolverton, J., in Barbre v. Goodale, 28 Or. 465 , 38 P. 67 , 43 P. 378 : “The question is here presented whether it is competent to show by parol testimony that a contract executed by and in the name of an agent is the contract of the principal, where the principal was known to the other contracting party at the date of its ex | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Barbre v. Goodale
green
1 sentence1975Nevertheless, our observation as to the soundness of the rule seems to be verified as shown by the following quotation from Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 2438, at pages 124-125: “The generally accepted law is sufficiently outlined in the following passage: “ ‘1896, Wolverton, J., in Barbre v. Goodale, 28 Or. 465 , 38 P. 67 , 43 P. 378 : “The question is here presented whether it is competent to show by parol testimony that a contract executed by and in the name of an agent is the contract of the principal, where the principal was known to the other contracting party at the date of its ex | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Grove v. Morris
green
1 sentence1915Appellant’s counsel concedes the soundness of the doctrine announced by this court in Grove v. Morris, —N. D. — , 151 N. W. 779 , but contends that it does not apply in this case owing to the fact that the failure of the court reporter to furnish the transcript is made one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
In re the Application of Brenner
neutral
1 sentence1907The Supreme Court of New York, in re Brenner, 66 App. Div. 375 , 73 N. Y. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Thayer v. . Manley
neutral
1 sentence1893Thayer v. Manley, 73 N. Y. 305 . | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Renninger v. Spatz
neutral
1 sentence1892The recent decision of the Pennsylvania supreme court in Renninger v. Spatz, 128 Pa. St. 524, 18 Atl. | 1 | 1892–1892 |
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.