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: |
|
| Term: |
01/2004 Argument: 01/06/2004 04:00pm
|
| 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
|
| 1 | | 09/24/2003 | |
NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/22/2003 |
| 2 | | 10/15/2003 | |
Plaintiff's Rule 11 Answer w/cover letter dated 10-13-03 |
| 3 | | 10/20/2003 | |
RECORD ON APPEAL |
| 4 | | 10/29/2003 | |
APPELLANT BRIEF |
| 5 | | 10/29/2003 | |
APPELLANT APPENDIX |
| 6 | | 10/30/2003 | |
DISK - ATB |
| 7 | | 11/04/2003 | |
Copies of Order appealed from & TOC for Appellant's Appendix - inserted |
| 8 | | 11/03/2003 | |
Transcript dated May 28, 2003 |
| 9 | | 11/04/2003 | |
DISK - TRA of May 28, 2003 |
| 10 | | 11/24/2003 | |
APPELLEE BRIEF |
| 11 | | 11/24/2003 | |
APPELLEE APPENDIX |
| 12 | | 11/25/2003 | |
DISK - AEB |
| 13 | | 12/05/2003 | |
RULE 11 MOTION (filed under N.D.R.App.P. 38), Affidavit of Thomas O'Halloran & Aff. Service. RspDue: 12/15/2003 |
| 14 | | 12/08/2003 | |
REPLY BRIEF of Appellant |
| 15 | | 12/08/2003 | |
DISK - RYB |
| 16 | | 12/08/2003 | |
Response to Rule 11 Motion (Part of "Appellant's Petition for Lawyer Sanctions" |
| 17 | | 12/08/2003 | |
Appellant's Petition for Lawyer Sanctions. RspDue: 12/19/2003 |
| 18 | | 12/10/2003 | |
Appellant's Brief Opposing Rule 11 Motion |
| 19 | | 12/17/2003 | |
NO ACTION TAKEN (Rule 11 Motion to be heard with the merits) |
| 20 | | 12/17/2003 | |
Motion (Petition for Lawyer Sanctions) to be heard with the merits |
| 21 | | 12/31/2003 | |
S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY |
| 22 | | 01/06/2004 | |
APPEARANCES: submitted to the court under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(2) |
| 23 | | 01/06/2004 | |
ARGUED: submitted to the court under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(2) (Vol. Y; Page 193) |
| 24 | | 04/13/2004 | |
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED |
| 25 | | 04/13/2004 | |
UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A. |
| 26 | | 04/13/2004 | |
Costs on appeal awarded in favor of the Appellees |
| 27 | | 04/14/2004 | |
Judgment Mailed to Parties |
| 28 | | 04/20/2004 | |
Notice of Entry of Judgment, with attachment, & Affid. of Service by Mail from Michael L. Gjesdahl |
| 29 | | 04/26/2004 | |
PETITION FOR REHEARING and Addendum |
| 30 | | 04/26/2004 | |
DISK - PER (e-mailed) |
| 31 | | 05/03/2004 | |
DISK - ADDENDUM TO PER (E-MAILED) |
| 32 | | 05/05/2004 | |
ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied |
| 33 | | 05/19/2004 | |
MANDATE |
| 34 | | 11/30/2010 | |
RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE |
| 35 | | 11/30/2010 | |
EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed |