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 1989–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Union State Bank v. Woellgreen2 sentences1989This action involves an adjudicated claim for prejudgment possession of collateral and an unadjudicated claim for foreclosure, and we therefore conclude that Rule 54(b) is applicable. [2] In Union State Bank v. Woell, supra, 357 N.W.2d at 238 , we outlined the following relevant factors for trial courts to consider in assessing a request for a Rule 54(b) certification: "`In reviewing 54(b) certifications, other courts have considered the following factors, inter alia: (1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the possibility that the need for review might or mi 1989This action involves an adjudicated claim for prejudgment possession of collateral and an unadjudicated claim for foreclosure, and we therefore conclude that Rule 54(b) is applicable. 2 In Union State Bank v. Woell, supra, 357 N.W.2d at 238 , we outlined the following relevant factors for trial courts to consider in assessing a request for a Rule 54(b) certification: “ ‘In reviewing 54(b) certifications, other courts have considered the following factors, inter alia: (1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicat-ed claims; (2) the possibility that the need for review might or mi | 2 | 3 |
Regstad v. Steffesgreen2 sentences1990See Regstad v. Steffes, 433 N.W.2d 202 (N.D.1988). 1989Regstad v. Steffes, 433 N.W.2d 202 (N.D.1988); Gillmore, supra. However, in light of the unusual circumstances of this case involving the sheriffs sale of the Lindbergs’ property on August 2, 1988, and the running of the redemption period while the unadjudicated claim is pending, there is a need to expedite the determination of this appeal, if appropriate. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United Hospital v. D'Annunzio
green
2 sentences2024It generally did so due to “unusual circumstances.” [¶30] For example, in United Hospital v. D’Annunzio, 462 N.W.2d 652 (N.D. 1990), there was an unadjudicated claim and no Rule 54(b) certification. 2024This Court wrote, “Therefore, ordinarily, we would dismiss this appeal.” Id. at 653 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kouba v. Febco, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024“Accordingly, we remand[ed] the record but retain[ed] jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to Rule 35(b), N.D.R.App.P. [now N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B)], and we respectfully request[ed] the district court to expeditiously consider the propriety of issuing a Rule 54(b) order.” Id. [¶32] Kouba v. Febco, Inc., 1998 ND 171 , 583 N.W.2d 810 , involved an unadjudicated counterclaim. 2024“Accordingly, we remand[ed] the record but retain[ed] jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to Rule 35(b), N.D.R.App.P. [now N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B)], and we respectfully request[ed] the district court to expeditiously consider the propriety of issuing a Rule 54(b) order.” Id. [¶32] Kouba v. Febco, Inc., 1998 ND 171 , 583 N.W.2d 810 , involved an unadjudicated counterclaim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State Bank of Kenmare v. Lindberg
green
2 sentences2024“The existence of an unadjudicated counterclaim without a Rule 54(b) certification for the adjudicated foreclosure claim precludes appellate review, and we would ordinarily dismiss this appeal.” Id. at 348 . 2024“However,” we continued, “in light of the unusual circumstances of this case involving the sheriff’s sale of the [defendants’] property on August 2, 1988, and the running of the redemption period while the unadjudicated claim is pending, there is a need to expedite the determination of this appeal, if appropriate.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gast Construction Co. v. Brighton Partnership
green
2 sentences1989Depending upon the facts of the particular case, all or some of the above factors may bear upon the propriety of the trial court's discretion in certifying a judgment as final under Rule 54(b).' Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., supra, 521 F.2d [360] at 364 [3rd Cir.1975]. 1989Depending upon the facts of the particular case, all or some of the above factors may bear upon the propriety of the trial court’s discretion in certifying a judgment as final under Rule 54(b).’ Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., supra, 521 F.2d [360] at 364 [3rd Cir.1975]. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Peterson v. Zerr
green
1 sentence1989Presented with a similar situation, we stated in Peterson v. Zerr, supra, 443 N.W.2d at 298-299: "`It is uneconomical for an appellate court to review facts on an appeal following a Rule 54(b) certification that it is likely to be forced to consider again when another appeal is brought after the district court renders its decision on the remaining claims or as to the remaining parties.' 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, § 2659, at pp. 103-104 [Footnote omitted.] The fact that it is likely an appeal will be taken after an unadjudicated claim is decided which involves the same factual situation a | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Gillmore v. Morelli
green
1 sentence1989Regstad v. Steffes, 433 N.W.2d 202 (N.D.1988); Gillmore, supra. However, in light of the unusual circumstances of this case involving the sheriffs sale of the Lindbergs’ property on August 2, 1988, and the running of the redemption period while the unadjudicated claim is pending, there is a need to expedite the determination of this appeal, if appropriate. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.