Luger v. Luger
Candace E. Luger, Joan M. Netterville,
Mary P. Swallow, Lisa S. Kampeska,
and Jeffrey Kurt Luger, Plaintiffs and Appellees
Robert Luger and Raymond Luger, Defendants and Appellants
South Central Judicial District,
Judge Sonna M. Anderson
|Nature of Action:||Contracts|
|Term:||03/2009  Argument: 03/10/2009|
|ND cite:||2009 ND 84|
765 N.W.2d 523
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Whether North Dakota District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Native Americans and a Native American Partnership located on Standing Rock Sioux Reservation?
II. Whether North Dakota District Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants/Appellants, Native Americans residing on Standing Rock Sioux Reservation?
III. Whether the Judgment granted was for greater or different relief from that which was prayed for in Complaint?
IV. Whether Trial Court abused its discretion to deny a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment?
A) Motion for Relief from Judgment under N.D.R.Civ. P.60(b) is remedial in nature and hould be liberally construed and applied.
B) Decision Merits are preferable to those by default.
C) When timely relief is sought from Default Judgment and movant has meritorious defense, doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of motion to set aside Judgment so case may be decided on its merits.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether a North Dakota District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute between partners in a North Dakota partnership of nonmember Indians operating on and concerning the management of privately-owned fee land in Sioux County, North Dakota.
II. Whether a North Dakota District Court has personal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians residing within the boundaries of the reservation of a tribe of which they are not a member.
III. Whether the monetary Judgment granted against Appellants was appropriate.
IV. Whether the District Court properly denied Appellants' Motion to Vacate Default Judgment
|Add Docket 20080194 RSS|
|1||08/07/2008 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/06/2008|
|2||08/07/2008 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 08/06/2008|
|3||10/10/2008 MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT|
|4||10/10/2008 ACTION BY TRIAL COURT. Granted: 11/04/2008|
|5||10/10/2008 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (part of Order/Ext/Time/TRA): 11/04/2008|
|6||10/30/2008 TRANSCRIPT DATED January 7, 2008|
|7||10/30/2008 DISK of tra dtd 1-7-08|
|8||11/04/2008 RECORD ON APPEAL|
|9||12/09/2008 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|10||12/09/2009 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|11||12/09/2008 DISK - atb (e-filed)|
|12||01/08/2009 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|13||01/08/2009 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|14||01/08/2009 E-FILED BRIEF - AEB|
|15||01/08/2009 E-FILED APPENDIX - AEA|
|16||01/21/2009 Received $25 surcharge for Appellee Brief (#18694)|
|17||01/23/2009 Copies of AEB from Central Duplicating Services|
|18||01/23/2009 Copies of AEA from Central Duplicating Services|
|19||02/06/2009 MOTION FOR Continuance of Argument|
|20||02/06/2009 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted|
|21||03/10/2009 APPEARANCES: Thomas D. Kelsch; James W. Martens and Steven L. Latham|
|22||03/10/2009 ARGUED: Kelsch; Martens|
|23||03/10/2009 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|24||05/14/2009 DISPOSITION (AND REMANDED): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|25||05/14/2009 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|26||05/14/2009 No costs awarded to either party|
|27||05/14/2009 Judgment E-Mailed to Parties|
|29||06/13/2009 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|