Kimball v. Landeis
v.
Jack Landeis and
Justin Gram, Defendants and Appellees
Judge Lawrence E. Jahnke
| Appellant: | #Omdahl Law Office | |
| Appellee: | Swanson & Warcup, Ltd. | |
| Appellee: | Pearson Christensen & Clapp, PLLP |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Did the trial court err in granting defendant gram's motion for summary judgment?
II. Did the trial court err in granting defendant Landeis' motion for summary judgment? A. The doctrine of equitable tolling should have applied B. The defendant, Landeis has actual notice of the complaint and has made a general appearance in the action
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Did the District Court err, as a matter of law, when it held that the record before it did not raise an issue of material fact which would allow the Finder of Fact to find in favor of the Appellant and that Appellant's showing did not constitute anything other than conjecture and speculation?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether a defendant may assert the defenses of insufficiency of process, improper service of process and/or lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer without waiving such defenses?
2. Whether service of process upon a person subject to guardianship must be made upon the guardian?
3. Whether actual knowledge of litigation will substitute for proper service of process upon a defendant?
4. Whether separate defendants in a negligent action are "otherwise united in interest" allowing a plaintiff to obtain service of process over both defendants by only properly serving one under N.D.C.C. Section 28-01-38 when the defendants are severally liable only?
5. Whether an action to recover damages for personal injury suffered from a snowmobile accident occurring more than six years prior to the date of effective service of a summons and complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations?
6. Whether the equitable tolling doctrine applies to toll a limitations period when the plaintiff did not pursue an alternative remedy within the statute of limitations and was not precluded from initiating any claim against the defendant by extraordinary circumstances?
Add Docket 20020100 RSS