Sall v. Sall

20100360 Duane C. Sall, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Caryn J. Sall, n/k/a Caryn J. Weber, Defendant and Appellant
Appeal from: District Court, East Central Judicial District, Cass County
Judge Douglas R. Herman
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Robert John Schultz
Term: 09/2011   Argument: 09/12/2011  09:30am
ND cite: 2011 ND 202
NW cite: 804 N.W.2d 378

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Issue 1. Order to Show Cause for Contempt of Court Denied.
Issue 1a: Caryn's Motion for Contempt of Court Denied.
Issue 1b: Caryn's Motion for Contempt of Court Denied.
Issue 2: Caryn's Motion to Compel Delivery of Documents Denied.
Issue 3: Caryn's Motion for Tax Claims for Minor Children Denied.
Issue 4: Caryn's Motion to Dismiss Denied.
Issue 5: Order Nor Written According to Rulings to Benefit Plaintiff.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Should Weber's Appeal be Denied?
A. Are Weber's Arguments Without Merit?
B. Does Weber's Brief Conform to Rule 28 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure?
C. Is the Appendix Prepared by Weber in Violation of Rule 30(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure?
II. Did the District Court Abuse its Discretion When It Denied Weber's Request that Sall be Found in Contempt Regarding COBRA?
III. Did the District Court Abuse its Discretion When It Denied Portions of Weber's Requests as Stale?
IV. Is the Order Dated January 11, 2011, Clearly Erroneous?
A. Did the District Court Did Err in Hearing and Granting Sall's Motion dated November 11, 2010?
B. Is the District Court's Order Denying Weber's Request for Allocation of the Tax Exemptions Clearly Erroneous?
C. Was the Order Properly Entered?
V. Did the District Court Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied Weber's Request that Sall be Found in Contempt Regarding Children's Expenses?
VI. Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion Regarding Evidentiary Issues?
VII. Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied Weber's Request for Financial Information Regarding the Parties' Minor Children?
VIII. Did the Trial Court Err Regarding Due Process Issues?
IX. Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion When It Addressed the Credibility of the Witnesses?

Add Docket 20100360 RSS Add Docket 20100360 RSS
Docket entries:
111/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/03/2010
211/04/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 11/03/2010
311/17/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED August 16, 2010, & C.O.S. (original part of Record on Appeal)
411/17/2010 DISK-tra (8/16/10) e-mailed
512/01/2010 MOTION FOR Temporary Remand
612/01/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted
712/01/2010 ORDER OF REMAND
812/01/2010 Order/Judgment Sent to Parties
912/21/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
1012/21/2010 NO ACTION TAKEN (MAT)
1101/03/2011 DISK-AMENDED TRA DATED 8.16.10 (E-MAILED)
1201/04/2011 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT DATED August 16, 2010, & C.O.S. (original part of Record on Appeal)
1301/26/2011 Refiled Record on Appeal after remand (Electronic)
1401/26/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (sua sponte) (reset due to remand)
1501/26/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (sua sponte) (reset due to remand). Granted: 03/07/2011
1602/24/2011 2nd NOA (filed in trial court on 2-22-11)
1702/24/2011 2nd ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/22/2011
1803/01/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
1903/01/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (ATB extended to 30 days after tra is filed, approximately 5/13/11). Granted: 05/13/2011
2003/21/2011 1st Supplemental Electronic Clerk's Certificate on Appeal (entry nos. 449 - 453)
2103/17/2011 Notice from Kristen Erickson that preparation of the transcript is suspended for failure to pay
2203/17/2011 Reset due date of the Appellant's Brief - transcript preparation suspended
2303/17/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (reset due date of Appellant's Brief - transcript preparation suspended). Granted: 04/13/2011
2404/05/2011 TRANSCRIPTS DATED 12-14-10 and 12-30-10 & C.O.S.
2504/05/2011 Reset ATB due date, last of TRA's were timely filed.
2604/05/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (reset ATB due date, last of TRA's were timely filed).. Granted: 05/05/2011
2705/05/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF
2805/05/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX
2905/05/2011 DISK-ATB (CD-ROM)
3006/06/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)
3106/06/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)
3206/06/2011 APPELLEE APPENDIX (E-filed)
3306/06/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA)
3406/08/2011 Received surcharges for AEB & AEA (Receipt Nos. 20348 & 20349)
3506/09/2011 Rec'd 7 copies of AEB from CSD
3606/09/2011 Received 6 copies of AEA from CSD
3707/19/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
3807/27/2011 REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT BY APPELLEE
3907/27/2011 E-FILED MOTION
4007/29/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Granted
4109/12/2011 APPEARANCES: Caryn J. Weber, pro se/Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(f)
4209/12/2011 ARGUED: Weber
4309/12/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
4410/18/2011 DISPOSITION (AND REMANDED): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT
4510/18/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning
4610/18/2011 CONCUR IN THE RESULT: Sandstrom, Dale V.: CON/RES
4710/18/2011 Neither party have and recover from costs and disbursements on this appeal.
4810/19/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
4910/31/2011 PETITION FOR REHEARING
5011/02/2011 DISK-PER
5111/15/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Pet/Rehearing). Denied
5211/25/2011 MANDATE
5311/29/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
5402/21/2012 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed and placed on docket
5504/19/2012 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied
5606/14/2012 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Rehearing was denied

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/17/2013