Riemers v. Anderson
Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
Deputy Paul Anderson, Sheriff
Michael Crocker, State's Attorney
Stuart A. Larson, Traill County,
Trooper David Pulju, Defendants and Appellees
Patrolman Paul Borud, and City
of Mayville, Defendants
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Wade L. Webb
|Nature of Action:||Personal Injury|
|Term:||03/2004  Argument: 03/09/2004 10:45am|
|ND cite:||2004 ND 109|
680 N.W.2d 280
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
A. Traill County 49-03-C-00034 (sexual bias in arrest, civil rights, etc.)
Did the Court err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment:
1. By ruling that the defendants had immunity for their actions?
2. By ruling on the issues of malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and two year statute of limitations instead of civil right denials?
3. By granting summary judgment without first allowing Riemers any discovery or to amend his complaint?
4. By denying Riemers his state constitutional right to a remedy for the injuries he suffered from the Defendants' biased and unlawful behavior?
5. By consolidating the two cases after first allowing Traill County to file consolidated motions and pleadings?
6. By dismissing Trooper Pulju from the law suit?
7. By awarding costs and disbursements to the Defendants?
8. By ruling on the admissibility of evidence contrary to Rule 56?
B. Traill County 49-03-C-00035 (rights of non-convicted under ICCPR)
1. Did the Court err by denying Riemers summary judgment, but granting summary judgment to the Defendants?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
The Case was Properly Dismissed for Insufficient Service of Process
A. Service was not effectuated against the State
B. Service was not effectuated on Trooper Pulju individually
The District Court Lacked Jurisdiction
A. The filing of a notice of claim is jurisdictional under North Dakota law
B. The claim was properly dismissed because a notice of claim was not filed
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. The overriding issue is whether the Trial Court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and that the Traill County Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing Riemers's complaints with prejudice. Based upon the arguments made in Riemers's appellant brief the specific issues in this appeal are:
I. Is Riemers barred from relitigating the claims and issues involved in this case?
II. Are the Traill County Defendants entitled to immunity from the claims made by Riemers?
III. Was the Trial Court correct in ruling that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights conferred no rights on Riemers to bring his claims?
|Add Docket 20030317 RSS|
|1||11/04/2003||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/03/2003|
|2||11/04/2003||NOTE: THIS CASE IS CONSOLIDATED w/20030318. MAKE ALL DOCKET ENTRIES, EXCEPT DIS/MAN, IN THIS CASE|
|3||11/04/2003||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 11/03/2003|
|4||11/21/2003||TRANSCRIPT DATED July 31, 2003|
|5||11/21/2003||DISK - TRA (e-filed)|
|6||12/05/2003||RECORD ON APPEAL (3 vols) Not rec'd: #29--Shorthand Notes.|
|9||12/30/2003||DISK - ATB|
|10||01/23/2004||APPELLEE BRIEF (State of ND--Trooper David Pulju) in 20030317|
|11||01/23/2004||DISK e-mailed (AEB - State)|
|12||01/27/2004||MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM RULE 32(a)(7)(A), N.D.R.App.P. (Word Limitation - AEB)|
|13||01/27/2004||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (11,500 word limit for AEB - Pearson Christensen firm). Granted|
|14||01/27/2004||E-FILED MOTION (re word limitation)|
|15||01/30/2004||APPELLEE BRIEF (Crocker,Anderson,Larson & Traill Co.) (e-Filed)|
|16||01/30/2004||E-FILED BRIEF (AEB -- Crocker, Anderson, Larson & Traill Co.)|
|17||02/02/2004||Payment of $25 surcharge (Receipt #15331)|
|18||02/05/2004||Received 7 copies of the AEB of Traill County from Central Duplicating|
|19||03/09/2004||APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Ronald F. Fischer and Douglas A. Bahr|
|20||03/09/2004||ARGUED: Riemers; Fischer and Bahr (Volume Y, Page 212)|
|21||03/09/2004||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|22||03/10/2004||MOTION FOR REMAND (sua sponte)|
|23||03/10/2004||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (REMAND). Granted|
|24||03/10/2004||ORDER OF REMAND|
|25||03/10/2004||Order Mailed to Parties, clerk & judge|
|26||04/12/2004||Ltr from Ronald Fischer re: Def. will not challenge Dist. Ct. Mem. Opinion & Order of 4-8-04|
|27||04/15/2004||RE-FILED RECORD ON APPEAL (3 VOLUMES) not sent w/record was #29 (Shorthand Notes)|
|28||04/15/2004||(ROA also re-filed in consolidated case 20030318)|
|30||06/03/2004||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|31||06/03/2004||Costs on appeal awarded in favor of the Appellees|
|32||06/07/2004||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|34||07/02/2004||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|35||03/16/2011||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|