Schaefer v. Souris River Telecom.
Joseph F. Schaefer and
LaVonne J. Schaefer, Plaintiffs and Appellants
Gerald Pettys, Defendants and Appellees
North Central Judicial District,
Judge Gary A. Holum
|Nature of Action:||Personal Injury|
|Term:||09/2000  Argument: 09/05/2000|
|ND cite:||2000 ND 187|
618 N.W.2d 175
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|
|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|
|34||11/30/2000 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|35||04/30/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|