Riemers v. State
Court of Appeals
Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
State of North Dakota, Defendant and Appellee
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Sonja Clapp
|Nature of Action:||Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)|
|Term:||07/2007  Argument: 07/10/2007 11:00am|
|ND cite:||2007 ND App|
738 N.W.2d 906
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did the Court err in greatly broadening its decisions into areas that were not part of the State's Motion for Summary Judgment?
II. Was Riemers requests for injunctive and declaratory relief moot?
III. Did Riemers lack standing to bring his constitutional challenges.
IV. Were Riemers' Constitutional challenges barred by collateral estoppel?
V. Did Riemers fail to state a claim for money damages?
VI. Did the Court error by not striking the Siems' Affidavit?
VII. Did the Court error in not permitting the jury to decide the law as well as the facts?
Reply Brief Issues
I. Is the state deliberately misleading this court in regards to the facts?
II. Did the state have the right to make a reply brief under a summary judgment motion?
III.Did the state raise the constitutional issues in its motion or answer?
IV.Is there a right to a cause of action for defamation under the state constitution?
V. Does the state need immunity so that it can lie to the public?
VI.Is a warrant an absolute bar to a claim of false arrest?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. The district court properly found Riemers' requests for declaratory and injunctive relief against the CSE Office are moot.
II. The district court properly dismissed Riemers' claims for money damages.
III. The district court properly dismissed Riemers' constitutional claims.
IV. The district court properly granted summary judgment.
|Add Docket 20070038 RSS|
|1||02/01/2007||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 01/31/2007|
|2||02/26/2007||RECORD ON APPEAL,not rec'd w/ROA were Steno Notes (Entry No. 10)|
|5||03/10/2007||DISK - ATB (emailed)|
|6||03/13/2007||Affidavit of Service by Mail on 3-10-07|
|7||04/04/2007||APPELLEE BRIEF (revised)|
|8||04/04/2007||Addendum to Appellee's Brief (attached to AEB)|
|9||04/04/2007||DISK - aeb (E-mailed)|
|10||04/11/2007||Assigned to Court of Appeals Panel|
|11||05/02/2007||MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF (letter dated 4-30-07 w/attachments from Roland C. Riemers)|
|12||05/02/2007||ACTION BY CLERK (RYB). Granted: 04/30/2007|
|13||05/05/2007||REPLY BRIEF of Appellant (revised)|
|14||05/05/2007||DISK - ryb (e-mailed)|
|15||07/10/2007||APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Douglas A. Bahr|
|16||07/10/2007||ARGUED: Riemers; Bahr|
|17||07/10/2007||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|19||08/15/2007||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam|
|20||08/15/2007||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee|
|21||08/20/2007||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|22||08/28/2007||Petition for Review (Court of Appeals)|
|23||08/28/2007||DISK - PFR (faxed)|
|24||09/06/2007||Copies of Petition for Review|
|25||10/16/2007||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Petition for Review). Denied|
|27||11/01/2007||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|