Riemers v. Grand Forks Herald
Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
Grand Forks Herald,
and Stephen J. Lee, Defendants and Appellees
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten
|Nature of Action:||Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)|
|Term:||09/2004  Argument: 09/22/2004 Waived|
|ND cite:||2004 ND 192|
688 N.W.2d 167
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
A. Did the court err in granting Knight-Ridder, Inc. summary judgment of dismissal based on the grounds that:
1. That there was no issue of material fact?
2. That the court lacked jurisdiction over the person of Knight-Ridder, Inc., a Florida corporation?
3. That Riemers failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted?
B. Did the court err and/or abuse its discretion in granting Stephen Lee and the Grand Forks Herald, Inc. summary judgment based on qualified privilege when:
1. It did not allow a jury to judge the law as well as the facts in a case of libel as required by Article 1, Section 4 of the North Dakota Constitution?
2. By denying Roland the right to a jury trial determination of facts because "reasonable minds could not differ" on the issue of actual malice and abuse of qualified privilege by the Defendants?
3. By not requiring the Herald's affiants be made available for cross examination by Riemers?
4. By allowing only conclusionary Affidavits from the Herald?
C. Did the court err by not allowing Riemers to do any discovery before granting summary judgment?
D. Is N.D.C.C. 14-02-05(4) unconstitutional?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. The District Court Correctly Granted Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Knight Ridder, Inc.
2. The District Court Correctly Granted Stephen Lee and Grand Forks Herald, Inc. Summary Judgment Based On Qualified Privilege.
3. The District Court Ruled Correctly In Granting Summary Judgment notwithstanding that Riemers had not undertaken discovery.
4. N.D.C.C. 14-02-05(4) Is Not Unconstitutional.
|Add Docket 20040069 RSS|
|1||03/16/2004||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 03/15/2004|
|2||04/02/2004||MOTION to Dismiss, Brief in Support, & Appendix in Support (e-filed). RspDue: 04/12/2004|
|3||04/02/2004||E-FILED MOTION (Mot/Dismiss, Brief & Appendix in Support)|
|4||04/05/2004||Affidavit of Service by Mail (AE's Motion, Brief, Appendix)|
|5||04/07/2004||Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss Appeal|
|6||04/07/2004||Faxed letter from Mr. Riemers dtd requesting 30 day extension to file ATB|
|7||04/07/2004||ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 05/24/2004|
|8||04/08/2004||Efiling surcharge for Motion to Dismiss paid by Appellee (receipt no. 15380)|
|9||04/12/2004||RECORD ON APPEAL, w/exception of Clerk's Cert. Nos. 25 & 28 (shorthand notes)|
|10||04/14/2004||ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|11||04/21/2004||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion to dismiss the appeal). Denied|
|14||05/22/2004||DISK - ATB (e-mailed)|
|15||06/02/2004||Page 5 of Knight-Ridder, Inc., reply to plaintiffs answer brief to be inserted into ATA.|
|17||06/17/2004||E-FILED Appellee's BRIEF|
|18||06/18/2004||Proof of Service by Mail on Mr. Riemers dated 6-17-04|
|19||06/18/2004||Payment of $25 surcharge (Receipt #15431)|
|20||06/22/2004||Received AEB from Central Duplicating|
|21||08/19/2004||SITTING WITH THE COURT: Nelson, David W.|
|22||08/20/2004||S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY|
|23||09/22/2004||APPEARANCES: submitted on briefs|
|24||09/22/2004||ARGUED: submitted on briefs (Vol. Z, p. 26)|
|26||10/15/2004||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|27||10/15/2004||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|28||10/18/2004||Corrected Opinion Page (Title Page)|
|29||10/18/2004||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|31||11/15/2004||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|32||06/03/2011||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|