Riemers v. City of Grand Forks

20060057 Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
City of Grand Forks, Respondent and Appellee
Appeal from: District Court, Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
Judge Joel D. Medd
Nature of Action: Other (Civil)
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Pearson Christensen & Clapp, PLLP
Term: 09/2006   Argument: 09/07/2006  02:45pm
ND cite: 2006 ND 224
NW cite: 723 N.W.2d 518

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint against the City based solely on the persuasiveness of an Attorney General Opinion instead of offering its own analysis?
II. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint against the City because it did not have to provide access to records not in the City's custody?
III. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint against the City because it considered all evidence files always part of an ongoing investigation, unless they felt politically like releasing that information to the press?

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 City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing Riemers's complaint with prejudice. Based upon the arguments made in Riemers's appellant brief, the specific issues in this appeal are:
I. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in refusing to provide Riemers with additional time for discovery?
II. Are there disputed issues of material fact?
III.Did the Trial Court inappropriately defer to Attorney General Open Records and Meetings Opinion 2005-0-13, issued on August 10, 2005?
IV. Did the City violate N.D.C.C.  44-04-18 by referring Riemers to other agencies for copies of records not in the City's possession?
V. Did the City violate N.D.C.C.  44-04-18 by refusing to provide Riemers with a copy of the evidence log relating to Randolph Fugere on the grounds that the evidence log was exempt from disclosure pursuant to N.D.C.C. 44-04-18.7(3) because it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation?

Add Docket 20060057 RSS Add Docket 20060057 RSS
Docket entries:
102/28/2006 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/27/2006
203/27/2006 RECORD ON APPEAL including separate transcript dated July 11, 2005. Not sent were Nos. 23, 45
303/27/2006 & 57 (Steno/shorthand notes)
404/04/2006 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
504/04/2006 E-FILED MOTION (MAT)
604/04/2006 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 05/08/2006
704/29/2006 APPELLANT BRIEF
804/29/2006 DISK - atb (e-mailed)
904/29/2006 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed; faxed)
1004/29/2006 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)
1105/11/2006 Received ATA from Central Duplicating
1206/02/2006 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)
1306/02/2006 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)
1406/02/2006 APPELLEE APPENDIX (e-filed)
1506/02/2006 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA)
1606/05/2006 Received $25 surcharge (Receipt #16885)
1706/06/2006 Made 7 copies of AEB & 6 copies of AEA
1809/07/2006 APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Sarah S. Barron
1909/07/2006 ARGUED: Riemers; Barron
2009/07/2006 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2111/07/2006 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2211/07/2006 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning
2311/07/2006 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee
2411/08/2006 Judgment Mailed to Parties
2511/30/2006 MANDATE
2612/06/2006 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 02/13/2012