The maxims of jurisprudence set forth in this section are not intended to qualify any of the provisions of the laws of this state, but to aid in their just application:
1. When the reason of a rule ceases so should the rule itself.
2. When the reason is the same the rule should be the same.
3. A person must not change that person's purpose to the injury of another.
4. Anyone may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for that person's benefit, but a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.
5. One must so use one's own rights as not to infringe upon the rights of another.
6. One who consents to an act is not wronged by it.
7. Acquiescence in error takes away the right of objecting to it.
8. A person cannot take advantage of that person's own wrong.
9. A person who fraudulently has dispossessed himself or herself of a thing may be treated as if the person still had possession.
10. A person who can and does not forbid that which is done on that person's behalf is deemed to have bidden it.
11. No one should suffer by the act of another.
12. One who takes the benefit must bear the burden.
13. One who grants a thing is presumed to grant also whatever is essential to its use.
14. For every wrong there is a remedy.
15. Between those who are equally in the right or equally in the wrong the law does not interpose.
16. Between rights otherwise equal the earliest is preferred.
17. No person is responsible for that which no person can control.
18. The law helps the vigilant before those who sleep on their rights.
19. The law respects form less than substance.
20. That which ought to have been done is to be regarded as done in favor of one to whom and against one from whom performance is due.
21. That which does not appear to exist is to be regarded as if it did not exist.
22. The law never requires impossibilities.
23. The law neither does nor requires idle acts.
24. The law disregards trifles.
25. Particular expressions qualify those which are general.
26. Contemporaneous exposition is in general the best.
27. The greater contains the less.
28. Superfluity does not vitiate.
29. That is certain which can be made certain.
30. Time does not confirm a void act.
31. The incident follows the principal, not the principal the incident.
32. An interpretation which gives effect is preferred to one which makes void.
33. Interpretation must be reasonable.\n\n Page No. 3
34. When one of two innocent persons must suffer by the act of a third, the one by whose negligence it happened must be the sufferer. \n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
108
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case:
Beavers v. Walters, 537 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1995).
Beavers v. Walters, 537 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1995).
· cites it 16× “The majority considers the maxim that no one can take advantage of his or her own wrong, section 31-11-05(8), NDCC, but rejects its application to these facts.”
Beck v. Lind, 235 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 1975).
· cites it 8× “See Section 31-11-05, subsections 8 and 15, N.”
Schiele v. Schiele, 2015 ND 169 (N.D. 2015).
· cites it 8× “[¶33] The fundamental criteria or premise of the child support guidelines themselves is that they “consider and assume that one parent acts as a primary caregiver and the other parent contributes a payment of child support to the child’s care.”
Koch v. Williams, 456 N.W.2d 299 (N.D. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Even though the law never requires impossibilities, NDCC § 31-11-05(22), one who voluntarily dissipates or reduces income is not protected either from the consequences of such conduct or by equitable maxims.”
Vig v. Swenson, 2017 ND 285 (N.D. 2017).
· cites it 4× “See N.D.C.C. § 31-11-05(19). Lessor Junietta Swenson was the holder of only a retained life estate in the leased property.”
Porter v. Porter, 2006 ND 123 (N.D. 2006).
· cites it 4× “" N.D.C.C. § 31-11-05(8), (11); see also Kraft v.”
Wheeler v. Wheeler, 548 N.W.2d 27 (N.D. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Even though the law never requires impossibilities, NDCC § 31-11-05(22), one who voluntarily dissipates or reduces income is not protected either from the consequences of such conduct or by equitable maxims.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(1) — 9 cases
Schiele v. Schiele, 2015 ND 169 (N.D. 2015).
“[¶33] The fundamental criteria or premise of the child support guidelines themselves is that they “consider and assume that one parent acts as a primary caregiver and the other parent contributes a payment of child support to the child’s care.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(11) — 1 case
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(14) — 2 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(15) — 1 case
Beavers v. Walters, 537 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1995).
“The majority considers the maxim that no one can take advantage of his or her own wrong, section 31-11-05(8), NDCC, but rejects its application to these facts.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(16) — 2 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(19) — 6 cases
Vig v. Swenson, 2017 ND 285 (N.D. 2017).
“See N.D.C.C. § 31-11-05(19). Lessor Junietta Swenson was the holder of only a retained life estate in the leased property.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(20) — 2 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(22) — 4 cases
Koch v. Williams, 456 N.W.2d 299 (N.D. 1990).
“Even though the law never requires impossibilities, NDCC § 31-11-05(22), one who voluntarily dissipates or reduces income is not protected either from the consequences of such conduct or by equitable maxims.”
Wheeler v. Wheeler, 548 N.W.2d 27 (N.D. 1996).
“Even though the law never requires impossibilities, NDCC § 31-11-05(22), one who voluntarily dissipates or reduces income is not protected either from the consequences of such conduct or by equitable maxims.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(23) — 26 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(24) — 7 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(25) — 3 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(27) — 5 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(30) — 1 case
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(33) — 3 cases
Schiele v. Schiele, 2015 ND 169 (N.D. 2015).
“[¶33] The fundamental criteria or premise of the child support guidelines themselves is that they “consider and assume that one parent acts as a primary caregiver and the other parent contributes a payment of child support to the child’s care.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(34) — 2 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(4) — 3 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(5) — 2 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(6) — 6 cases
Beck v. Lind, 235 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 1975).
“See Section 31-11-05, subsections 8 and 15, N.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(7) — 5 cases
— N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-05(8) — 16 cases
Beavers v. Walters, 537 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1995).
“The majority considers the maxim that no one can take advantage of his or her own wrong, section 31-11-05(8), NDCC, but rejects its application to these facts.”
Porter v. Porter, 2006 ND 123 (N.D. 2006).
“" N.D.C.C. § 31-11-05(8), (11); see also Kraft v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.