Schaefer v. Souris River Telecom.
|
| 20000011 |
Joseph F. Schaefer and
LaVonne J. Schaefer, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Souris River
Telecommunications
Cooperative and
Gerald Pettys, Defendants and Appellees
|
| Appeal from: |
District Court,
Northwest Judicial District,
Ward County
Judge Gary A. Holum |
|
Nature of Action: |
Personal Injury
|
| Counsel: |
|
| Term: |
09/2000 Argument: 09/05/2000 09:30am
|
| ND cite: |
2000 ND 187
|
| NW cite: |
618 N.W.2d 175
|
|
|
| Issues: |
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I.Are plaintiffs Joe and LaVonne Schaefer entitled to a new trial because of errors of law and other irregularities which occurred at trial?
II.Did the trial court erroneously exclude plaintiffs' documentation evidencing some $2,200 in medication expense, thereby misleading the jury to conclude that plaintiff had not exceeded the $2,500 medical expense threshold necessary to establish a
"serious injury"?
III.Did the trial court erroneously exclude plaintiffs' medical and drug expense documentation on foundational grounds when the foundation thereto had actually already been stipulated to by counsel for the parties?
IV.Are plaintiffs entitled to a new trial because defendants abused the discovery process by failing to turn over relevant documents which were specifically requested in discovery?
V.Are plaintiffs entitled to a new trial because the trial court erroneously refused to allow plaintiffs' counsel to read into evidence the depositions of plaintiffs' expert witness doctors and instead allowed defendants' counsel to do so?
VI.Did the trial court's conduct surrounding the exclusion of the medical and drug expense summaries constitute an irregularity which prevented plaintiffs from receiving a fair trial?
VII.Did the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors of law and the other irregularities which occurred during the trial deprive plaintiffs of a fair trial, thereby entitling them to a new trial?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
The court properly excluded Plaintiffs'
Exhibits 14 and 16
Defendants did not stipulate to foundation
of exhibits 16 and 14
Defendants did not abuse the discovery
process and any oversight did not
prejudice plaintiffs in any way
The trial court's handling of reading
depositions into evidence was appropriate
|
|
 Add Docket 20000011 RSS
|
| 1 | | 01/12/2000 | |
NOTICE OF APPEAL: 01/11/2000 |
| 2 | | 01/12/2000 | |
ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 01/11/2000 |
| 3 | | 01/18/2000 | |
RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 03/01/2000 |
| 4 | | 03/03/2000 | |
TRANS. DATED 2-25-99; 3-8-99 (Vols. I, II, & III) and two copies of Trans. dated 8-31-98 |
| 5 | | 03/03/2000 | |
DISKS - TRA (2disks) (8-31-98, 2-25-99, 3-8-99-3 vols) |
| 6 | | 03/09/2000 | |
RECORD ON APPEAL (2 vols.), Exhibits, Transcripts (2), & Depositions (4) -- NOTE: Not rec'd were: |
| 7 | | 03/09/2000 | |
#52-Exh. 2 (Bumper), 62-Exh. 12 (Steel Bar), 71-Exh. C (Large Photo), 72-Exh. D (Large Photo) & |
| 8 | | 03/09/2000 | |
73-Exh. E (Large Photo) |
| 9 | | 03/31/2000 | |
COMBINED NOTICE OF MOT., MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF & BRIEF IN SUPPORT |
| 10 | | 03/31/2000 | |
ACTION BY CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK (CMB). Granted: 05/12/2000 |
| 11 | | 05/05/2000 | |
MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (w/attach.) |
| 12 | | 05/08/2000 | |
ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (ATB). Granted: 05/22/2000 |
| 13 | | 05/22/2000 | |
APPELLANT APPENDIX |
| 14 | | 05/26/2000 | |
Motion for add'l time to comply w/Rule 32 (letter from Mr. Bolinske dated 5-25-00) |
| 15 | | 05/26/2000 | |
ACTION BY CLERK (add'l time to comply w/Rule 32). Granted |
| 16 | | 06/02/2000 | |
APPELLANT BRIEF (corrected) & Aff. of Service by mail |
| 17 | | 06/02/2000 | |
DISK - ATB |
| 18 | | 06/30/2000 | |
APPELLEE BRIEF |
| 19 | | 07/03/2000 | |
DISK - aeb |
| 20 | | 07/17/2000 | |
MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF |
| 21 | | 07/17/2000 | |
ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 07/27/2000 |
| 22 | | 07/27/2000 | |
REPLY BRIEF of Appellant |
| 23 | | 07/27/2000 | |
attached exhibits to RYB |
| 24 | | 07/27/2000 | |
DISK-ryb |
| 25 | | 08/01/2000 | |
Copies of corrected Issues page for ATB |
| 26 | | 09/05/2000 | |
APPEARANCES: Robert V. Bolinske; James E. Nostdahl |
| 27 | | 09/05/2000 | |
ARGUED: Bolinske; Nostdahl (Vol. X; page 49) |
| 28 | | 09/05/2000 | |
ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST |
| 29 | | 10/26/2000 | |
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED |
| 30 | | 10/26/2000 | |
UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A. |
| 31 | | 10/26/2000 | |
Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellees |
| 32 | | 10/27/2000 | |
Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties |
| 33 | | 11/29/2000 | |
MANDATE |
| 34 | | 11/30/2000 | |
RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE |
| 35 | | 04/30/2007 | |
EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed |