Meide v. Stenehjem
and Meide & Son, Incorporated,
a North Dakota Corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney
General, ex rel., State of
North Dakota, State Health
Department, and Environmental
Abatement Services, Inc., Defendants and Appellees
Judge Richard W. Grosz
| Appellant: | Turman & Lang, Ltd. | |
| Appellee: | Lyle Gregory Witham , Att. General Office | |
| Appellee: | Smith Bakke Porsborg Schweigert & Armstrong |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
ISSUE NO. 1: Factual issues preclude summary judgment.
ISSUE NO. 2: Meide's Complaint is not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
ISSUE NO. 3: Meide's cause of action is not barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1.Whether the District Court erred in determining that subparagraph 1 of paragraph XX of the consent agreement in Civil No. 99-C-0028 was not ambiguous as a matter of law.
2.In the alternative, whether the District Court erred in determining Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the trial court erred in granting Summary Judgment?
II.Whether the trial court erred in finding that subparagraph 1 of paragraph XX of the Consent Agreement in Civil No. 99-C-0028 was not ambiguous as a matter of law?
III.Whether the trial court erred in finding that Meide's declaratory judgment action was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel?
IV.Whether Meide's claim was precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel?
Add Docket 20010273 RSS