Thompson v. Olson

20050091 Cory L. Thompson, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Nikki L. Olson, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Morton County
Judge Robert O. Wefald
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellee: Austin G. Engel Jr.
Appellant: Smith Bakke Porsborg Schweigert & Armstrong
Term: 10/2005   Argument: 10/19/2005  9:30am
ND cite: 2006 ND 54
NW cite: 711 N.W.2d 226

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the District Court committed clear error in granting custody of M.T. to Nikki Olson?
II. Whether the District Court committed clear error in setting the terms of visitation?
III. Whether the District Court erred as a matter of law in limiting the parties' time to present their case?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the District Court clearly erred in finding that Nikki acted in self defense when she slapped Cory on August 9, 1998, perforating his ear drum.
II. Whether the District Court clearly erred in finding Thompson inflicted domestic violence on Olson constituting serious bodily injury not done by Thompson in self defense, thus triggering the rebuttable presumption against Thompson.
III. Whether the District Court clearly erred in not finding that Nikki's slapping M.T. across the face and head was domestic violence that should have raised the rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to Nikki.
IV. Whether the District Court clearly erred in making no finding on Nikki calling M.T. derogatory names nor on Nikki making derogatory statements about Cory in M.T.'s presence.
V. Whether the District Court clearly erred in finding that Cory failed to present clear and convincing evidence that M.T.'s best interests require him to have custody of her.
VI. Whether, if upon review, the Supreme Court finds the rebuttable presumption has not been triggered, the best interest factors including domestic violence need to be reconsidered.
VII. Whether the case should be remanded for changes in the visitation schedule.
VIII. Whether the parties should have additional time for testimony.

Add Docket 20050091 RSS Add Docket 20050091 RSS

Docket entries:
103/15/2005 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 03/14/2005
203/15/2005 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 03/14/2005
304/13/2005 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 05/03/2005
405/02/2005 TRANSCRIPT DATED 9-27-04
505/02/2005 DISK - tra (9-27-04) (e-mailed)
605/04/2005 RECORD ON APPEAL (2 Vols.)
705/06/2005 MOTION for Stay Pending Appeal, Brief in Support, & attachments
805/06/2005 E-FILED MOTION for Stay Pending Appeal, Brief in Support, & attachments
905/09/2005 Payment of $8.50 for electronic Motion (Receipt No. 16170)
1005/11/2005 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion for Stay). Denied
1106/13/2005 APPELLANT BRIEF
1206/13/2005 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1306/13/2005 E-FILED BRIEF (Appellant's Brief)
1406/13/2005 E-FILED APPENDIX (Appellant's Appendix)
1506/13/2005 Payment of $61 fee for filing electronically ATB and ATA (Receipt #16206)
1606/20/2005 Received 7 copies of ATB from central duplicating
1706/20/2005 Received 6 copies of ATA from central duplicating
1807/14/2005 APPELLEE BRIEF
1907/14/2005 APPELLEE APPENDIX
2007/18/2005 Corrected TOA & pages 6 & 8 for AEB
2107/20/2005 MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF
2207/20/2005 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 08/15/2005
2307/20/2005 E-FILED MOTION (MRY/by fax)
2407/21/2005 DISK - AEB (e-mailed)
2508/15/2005 REPLY BRIEF
2608/15/2005 E-FILED BRIEF (Reply Brief)
2708/15/2005 Copies of RYB made
2810/19/2005 APPEARANCES: Suzanne M. Schweigert; Austin G. Engel, Jr., Nikki L. Olson
2910/19/2005 ARGUED: Schweigert; Engel
3010/19/2005 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
3103/29/2006 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED AND MODIFIED
3203/29/2006 SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
3303/29/2006 (DISSENT): Sandstrom, Dale V.: DISSENT
3403/29/2006 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee
3504/04/2006 Judgment Mailed to Parties
3605/03/2006 MANDATE
3705/10/2006 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
3809/18/2012 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 09/16/2014