Riemers v. Grand Forks Herald

20040069

Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Grand Forks Herald,
Knight-Ridder, Inc.,
and Stephen J. Lee, Defendants and Appellees

Appeal from:

District Court, Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten

Nature of Action:

Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)

Counsel:

Appellant:		Pro se
Appellee:		Olson, Juntunen & Sandberg, Ltd.

Term:

09/2004 Argument: 09/22/2004 04:00pm

ND cite:

2004 ND 192

NW cite:

688 N.W.2d 167

Issues:

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

Docket entries:

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
30	11/08/2004	MANDATE
31	11/15/2004	RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
32	06/03/2011	EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/24/2013