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|
|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|
|12||05/22/2004 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|13||05/22/2004 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|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.|
|16||06/17/2004 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|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)|
|25||10/15/2004 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|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|