Riemers v. O'Halloran

20030280 Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Thomas J. O'Halloran, Buckhoff &
O'Halloran & Associates, LLP, Defendants and Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten
Nature of Action: Other (Civil)
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Gjesdahl Law, P.C.
Term: 01/2004   Argument: 01/06/2004  Waived
ND cite: 2004 ND 79
NW cite: 678 N.W.2d 547


Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
The only issue to be resolved on appeal is do the Defendants have "absolute witness immunity" from suit no matter how outlandish, immoral or fraudulent their conduct? As this deals with just a question of law, the review standard is de novo. Lawrence v. Roberdeau, 2003 ND 124,  7, 665 N.W.2d 719. As the questions of law are well presented in the trial court's order and the litigant's briefs, no unneeded transcript is submitted in this appeal.

Reply Brief Issues:
Both parties agree that the crux of this appeal is do the Appellees have "absolute witness immunity" from suit no matter how outlandish, immoral or fraudulent their conduct?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Thomas J. O'Halloran and his forensic accounting firm were appointed by the District Court to serve as its financial expert in a divorce case. O'Halloran's work was intended to help the court rightly determine an equitable property division and support amounts. Roland C. Riemers strongly disagreed with the opinions O'Halloran shared with the divorce court and, what's more, he believed O'Halloran was in league with his ex-wife's attorney. Accordingly, after the divorce action became final, Riemers sued O'Halloran in tort. May he? Or, instead, is O'Halloran immune from suit?

Add Docket 20030280 RSS Add Docket 20030280 RSS

Docket entries:
109/24/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/22/2003
210/15/2003 Plaintiff's Rule 11 Answer w/cover letter dated 10-13-03
310/20/2003 RECORD ON APPEAL
410/29/2003 APPELLANT BRIEF
510/29/2003 APPELLANT APPENDIX
610/30/2003 DISK - ATB
711/04/2003 Copies of Order appealed from & TOC for Appellant's Appendix - inserted
811/03/2003 Transcript dated May 28, 2003
911/04/2003 DISK - TRA of May 28, 2003
1011/24/2003 APPELLEE BRIEF
1111/24/2003 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1211/25/2003 DISK - AEB
1312/05/2003 RULE 11 MOTION (filed under N.D.R.App.P. 38), Affidavit of Thomas O'Halloran & Aff. Service. RspDue: 12/15/2003
1412/08/2003 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant
1512/08/2003 DISK - RYB
1612/08/2003 Response to Rule 11 Motion (Part of "Appellant's Petition for Lawyer Sanctions"
1712/08/2003 Appellant's Petition for Lawyer Sanctions. RspDue: 12/19/2003
1812/10/2003 Appellant's Brief Opposing Rule 11 Motion
1912/17/2003 NO ACTION TAKEN (Rule 11 Motion to be heard with the merits)
2012/17/2003 Motion (Petition for Lawyer Sanctions) to be heard with the merits
2112/31/2003 S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY
2201/06/2004 APPEARANCES: submitted to the court under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(2)
2301/06/2004 ARGUED: submitted to the court under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(2) (Vol. Y; Page 193)
2404/13/2004 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2504/13/2004 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.
2604/13/2004 Costs on appeal awarded in favor of the Appellees
2704/14/2004 Judgment Mailed to Parties
2804/20/2004 Notice of Entry of Judgment, with attachment, & Affid. of Service by Mail from Michael L. Gjesdahl
2904/26/2004 PETITION FOR REHEARING and Addendum
3004/26/2004 DISK - PER (e-mailed)
3105/03/2004 DISK - ADDENDUM TO PER (E-MAILED)
3205/05/2004 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied
3305/19/2004 MANDATE
3411/30/2010 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
3511/30/2010 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/30/2014