Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)

Riemers v. State , 2008 ND 118,
A district court judgment awarding attorney fees for a prior appeal is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
Larson v. Hagerty , 2008 ND 99,
A district court judgment dismissing a complaint which alleged that state officials had deprived the appellant access to the courts is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
Riemers v. Mahar , 2008 ND 95, 748 N.W.2d 714
A public figure is prohibited from recovering damages for defamatory criticism unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the statements were made with actual malice.
Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden at trial.
Witzke v. Gonzales , 2007 ND 191, 742 N.W.2d 840
Summary judgment for claims of private nuisance and defamation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
Riemers v. State , 2007 ND App 4, 739 N.W.2d 248
A judgment of dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted will be affirmed by an appellate court if it cannot discern a potential for proof to support the claim.
Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(c), if, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56.
The court, in deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, may consider, in addition to the pleadings, materials embraced by the pleadings and materials that are part of the public record without converting the motion to a summary judgment.
Riemers v. State , 2007 ND App 3, 738 N.W.2d 906
Factual assertions in a brief do not raise an issue of material fact satisfying Rule 56(e) for purposes of resisting a motion for summary judgment.
A party asserting a constitutional claim must do more than submit bare assertions and must bring up the heavy artillery or forego the claim.
Riemers v. State , 2007 ND App 2, 732 N.W.2d 398
A judge may not be held liable for any judicial act.
Collateral estoppel generally prohibits the relitigation, in a second action, of particular issues of either fact or law which were, or by logical and necessary implication must have been, litigated and determined in the prior suit.
Witzke v. Gonzales , 2006 ND 213, 722 N.W.2d 374
A civil action is commenced by the service of a summons.
Absent personal jurisdiction, the court is powerless to do anything beyond dismissing without prejudice.
Riemers v. State , 2006 ND 162, 718 N.W.2d 566
Absent personal jurisdiction, a court is powerless to do anything beyond dismissing a case without prejudice.
Witzke v. City of Bismarck , 2006 ND 160, 718 N.W.2d 586
A prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability for prosecutorial functions such as the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution, the presentation of the State's case at trial, and other conduct intimately associated with the judicial process.
There is no private cause of action for perjury.
Sanderson v. Walsh Co. , 2006 ND 83, 712 N.W.2d 842
A dismissal without prejudice is not appealable except where the dismissal has the practical effect of terminating the litigation in the plaintiff's forum, e.g., a statute of limitations has run or where litigation is foreclosed in the state court.
Mailing, even by certified mail with return receipt and restricted delivery, does not constitute "delivering" for purposes of service of process on a county or the State under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E) and 4(d)(2)(F).
Arth v. Arth , 2006 ND 50, 711 N.W.2d 606
Order for dismissal of lawsuit with prejudice is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
Brown v. State Board of Higher Education , 2006 ND 60, 711 N.W.2d 194
A university student with a grievance against the university is required to exhaust the university's internal procedures, provided by the university's policies, for handling such grievances prior to bringing a claim in court.
Kuperus v. Willson , 2006 ND 12, 709 N.W.2d 726
A written settlement agreement is interpreted under rules for construing written contracts.
A settlement agreement will not be set aside absent a showing of fraud, duress, undue influence, or other grounds for rescinding a contract.
Ernst v. Acuity , 2005 ND 179, 704 N.W.2d 869
Business risk exclusions in a contractor's comprehensive general liability policy are designed to exclude coverage for defective workmanship by the insured causing damage to the project itself.
Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minnesota v. Commercial Group West , 2005 ND 114, 698 N.W.2d 483
Under a builder's risk insurance policy, a party not expressly named as a co-insured under the policy is protected from subrogation only to the extent that the insurance policy expressly covers the party's property.
Ernst v. Tjon , 2005 ND App 1, 704 N.W.2d 574
A summary judgment dismissing a defamation and libel action is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
Makeeff v. City of Bismarck , 2005 ND 60, 693 N.W.2d 639
A landowner is not immune from liability for an accident that occurs on the landowner's premises just because the accident was caused by a natural accumulation of snow and ice.
Landowners or occupiers have a duty to lawful entrants to reasonably maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to another, the seriousness of an injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.
Landowners, however, are not insurers of their premises, nor must they endure unreasonable burdens to maintain it.
Simpson v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. , 2005 ND 55, 693 N.W.2d 612
For purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, parties and their privies are barred by a former judgment.
Res judicata and collateral estoppel apply when subsequent claims are based on the same facts and events but different legal theories are pled.
A district court's determination regarding a request for sanctions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 will not be reversed unless the court abused its discretion.
Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2).
Riemers v. Grand Forks Herald , 2004 ND 192, 688 N.W.2d 167
Privilege is based upon the sound public policy that some communications are so socially important that the full and unrestricted exchange of information requires some latitude for mistake. A privileged communication does not enjoy absolute immunity, however.
To prevent abuse, the privilege is a qualified privilege. A qualified privilege is abused if statements are made with actual malice, without reasonable grounds for believing them to be true, and on a subject matter irrelevant to the common interest or duty.
Kouba v. State of North Dakota , 2004 ND 186, 687 N.W.2d 466
Public policy demands that the State retain immunity for the exercise of discretionary acts in its official capacity, including legislative, judicial, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial functions.
The adjudicative acts performed by State officials in carrying out their duties are quasi-judicial in nature, and, therefore, immune from liability.
When a governmental agency systemically disregards the requirements of law, reversal may be required to ensure the government acts consistently and predictably in accordance with the law.
Hansen v. Scott , 2004 ND 179, 687 N.W.2d 247
When applying principles of comity, it is not against North Dakota public policy to grant a sister state's employees the same level of immunity North Dakota state employees enjoy.
Investors Real Estate Trust Properties v. Terra Pacific Midwest , 2004 ND 167, 686 N.W.2d 140
A plaintiff alleging negligence must present affirmative evidence that the defendant's conduct caused the injury, and may not establish causation solely by discrediting other possible causes.
A plaintiff relying upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur must show the defendant had exclusive control of the specific instrumentality that caused a fire, not merely control of the location or area where the fire occurred.
Grandbois and Grandbois, Inc. v. City of Watford City , 2004 ND 162, 685 N.W.2d 129
Summary judgment is proper against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
The plaintiff has the burden of showing actual damage and establishing that the actual damage was proximately caused by the alleged fraudulent or deceitful act.
Riemers v. Peters-Riemers , 2004 ND 153, 684 N.W.2d 619
Collateral estoppel generally bars new litigation, based on a different claim, of issues that were or must have been determined in the prior suit.
Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue if: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the one presented; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the party against whom the plea is asserted had a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
A court of this state that has made a child custody determination has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination.
No civil action lies for perjury in another proceeding.
Res judicata means that a valid, existing final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive, with regard to the issues raised, or those that could have been raised, and determined as to the parties and their privies in all other actions.
A trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance to amend a complaint will not be reversed unless the trial court abused its discretion.
A trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance to conduct additional discovery will not be reversed unless the trial court abused its discretion.
Zuger v. State , 2004 ND 16, 673 N.W.2d 615
Summary judgment is appropriate if the information available to the trial court does not establish a genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of a claim on which they will bear the burden of proof at trial.
Factual assertions in a brief do not raise an issue of material fact satisfying N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
The elements of an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are extreme and outrageous conduct that is intentional or reckless and causes severe emotional distress.
Iglehart v. Iglehart , 2003 ND 154, 670 N.W.2d 343
Summary judgment is appropriate in a negligence action when the record indicates the defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiff and was not negligent.
Grewal v. ND Association of Counties , 2003 ND 156, 670 N.W.2d 336
An employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor unless the employer retains control of the method, manner, and operative details of the independent contractor's work.
Kjolsrud v. MKB Management Corp. , 2003 ND 144, 669 N.W.2d 82
North Dakota's false advertising law authorizes "any person acting for the interests of itself, its members, or the general public" to bring an action to enjoin violations only if that person satisfies standing requirements.
Collette v. Clausen , 2003 ND 129, 667 N.W.2d 617
A supplier of a chattel can be liable for negligent entrustment if the supplier knows or has reason to know the person who he supplies the chattel to is likely to use the chattel in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself or others.
A supplier of a chattel has a duty to warn of dangers if the supplier knows or has reason to know the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied; has no reason to believe those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition; and fails to exercise reasonable care to inform the users of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous.
Boser v. Hanson , 2003 ND 95, 663 N.W.2d 182
Jury instructions must fairly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law.
A trial court may properly refuse to submit an inapplicable or irrelevant instruction to the jury.
Except as otherwise provided, N.D.C.C. 39-24-09 prohibits operating a snowmobile on a street or highway except while crossing a street or highway encountered as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than in its intended purpose of transportation along it.
Wagner v. Miskin , 2003 ND 69, 660 N.W.2d 593
An appellant assumes the consequences and the risk for the failure to file a complete transcript, and if the record on appeal does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of alleged error, this Court will decline review of the issue.
A party cannot complain of alleged error on appeal if the party invited the error.
A person making a defamatory statement in a privileged setting is not protected when repeating the defamatory statement in a non-privileged setting.
Malchose v. Kalfell , 2003 ND 75, 664 N.W.2d 508
A trial court may determine a document is authentic based on the proponent's chain of custody testimony and the document's internal indicia of trustworthiness.
The public record exception to the hearsay rule applies to all records and data compilations of a public agency, including those not generally accessible to the public. The availability of a custodian or other witness with knowledge of the making of the record is not a requirement for admissibility.
Skjervem v. Minot State Univ. , 2003 ND 52, 658 N.W.2d 750
When no pertinent evidence on an essential element of a party's claim is presented in resistance to a motion for summary judgment, it is presumed no such evidence exists.
Amyotte v. Rolette Co. Housing Authority , 2003 ND 48, 658 N.W.2d 324
A landlord's duty to protect others from harm by an animal on the premises arises only when the landlord knows that the animal is dangerous and presents an unreasonable risk of harm.
An issue of fact becomes a question of law if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion from the evidence.
Hartman v. Estate of Miller , 2003 ND 24, 656 N.W.2d 676
An insurer has a duty to act fairly and in good faith in dealing with its insured, including a duty of fair dealing in paying claims, providing defenses to claims, negotiating settlements, and fulfilling all other contractual obligations.
An insurer is held to know North Dakota law regarding the interpretation of an insurance contract.
In a personal injury protection endorsement for no-fault benefits, bodily injury includes post-traumatic stress disorder accompanied by physical manifestations.
Moen v. State , 2003 ND 17, 656 N.W.2d 671
To pursue a claim against the State or a state employee, a person must give notice of the claim within 180 days "after the alleged injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered."
Without the timely filing of a notice of claim as required by N.D.C.C. 32-12.2-04, a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a lawsuit against the State.
Howe v. Microsoft Corporation , 2003 ND 12, 656 N.W.2d 285
Class certification is not automatically precluded because individual issues will remain after the common questions of law and fact have been resolved.
A trial court is to determine whether to certify a class action without delving into the merits of the case.
A motion for class certification is not to be treated as a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs are not required to present evidence to support each element of their claims.
At the class certification stage, a trial court may consider expert evidence as long as the basis of the expert's opinion is not so blatantly flawed that, on its face, it would be inadmissible as a matter of law.
Hamilton v. Oppen , 2002 ND 185, 653 N.W.2d 678
Averaging individual jurors' estimates of percentages of fault is not improper in a quotient verdict, but the jurors' prior agreement to be bound by the result of the computation invalidates the verdict.
The trial court's responsibility is to make certain expert testimony is reliable as well as relevant.
Relevant photographs may be excluded from evidence if their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Andes v. Brogdin , 2002 ND 150, 651 N.W.2d 692
A trial court judgment dismissing a negligence action is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Rose v. United Equit. Ins. Co. , 2002 ND 148, 651 N.W.2d 683
The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to certify a class action under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23.
Class certification is not automatically precluded by the existence of individual issues which will remain after the common questions of law and fact have been resolved.
To certify a class, the trial court must find that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Mr. G's Turtle Mountain Lodge v. Roland Township , 2002 ND 140, 651 N.W.2d 625
An attempted appeal from a judgment that has been voluntarily paid and formally satisfied of record fails for lack of jurisdiction.
Summary judgment is appropriate when a party fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute on an essential element of his claim on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.
A communication is not libelous if the language used is not fairly susceptible of a defamatory meaning.
Howes v. Kelly Services, Inc. , 2002 ND 208, 654 N.W.2d 422
In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must accept the truth of the evidence presented by the non-moving party and the truth of all reasonable inferences from that evidence which supports the verdict.
Once one party files a demand for a nine-person jury, other parties are entitled to rely on that demand for the issues it covers, and they need not file their own demand for a nine- person jury.
Ziegelmann v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 2002 ND 134, 649 N.W.2d 556
An alleged product defect that has not manifested itself in such a way as to cause an observable adverse physical or economic harm does not constitute an injury that will support a class action lawsuit based on theories of negligence, fraud, and deceit.
Howes v. Kelly Services, Inc. , 2002 ND 131, 649 N.W.2d 218
In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must accept the truth of the evidence presented by the non-moving party and the truth of all reasonable inferences from that evidence which supports the verdict.
Once one party files a demand for a nine-person jury, other parties are entitled to rely on that demand for the issues it covers, and they need not file their own demand for a nine- person jury.
Hansen v. Scott , 2002 ND 101, 645 N.W.2d 223
A trial court may grant a certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) if the issues raised in the appeal will not be mooted by future developments in the trial court.
Rule 4(b)(2), N.D.R.Civ.P., authorizes North Dakota courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident to the fullest extent permitted by due process.
To establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(b)(2), the requirements of one of the subparagraphs of Rule 4(b)(2) must be satisfied, and the nonresident must have sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota so the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of substantial justice, fair play, or due process.
Luallin v. Koehler , 2002 ND 80, 644 N.W.2d 591
The requirements for registration of securities and dealers under the North Dakota Securities Act apply only to securities which are sold or offered for sale in this state and only to dealers or agents who offer for sale or sell any securities within or from this state.
For purposes of liability for selling securities in violation of the North Dakota Securities Act, what constitutes participation or aid in any way in making a sale of securities is determined upon the facts of each case.
Fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and that higher burden of proof should be considered by the trial court in determining whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to fraud.
Knutson v. The County of Barnes , 2002 ND 68, 642 N.W.2d 910
Failure to present a claim against the state to the office of management and budget within one hundred and eighty days requires dismissal of a subsequent action. Summary judgment is appropriate when a party fails to plead the necessary elements to satisfy the statutory RICO requirements.
Bertsch v. Duemeland , 2002 ND 32, 639 N.W.2d 455
Whether a communication that is capable of a defamatory meaning is understood by the recipient as defamatory is ordinarily a question of fact.
To recover for interference with a business relationship, a plaintiff must show he would have obtained some economic benefit in the absence of the interference.
Belgarde v. Askim , 2001 ND 206, 636 N.W.2d 916
Before dismissing a cause of action to sanction a party for destruction of evidence, the trial court must consider the culpability of the party against whom sanctions are being imposed, the prejudice to the party moving for sanctions, and the availability of less severe alternative sanctions.
Voge v. Schnaidt , 2001 ND 174, 635 N.W.2d 161
An action for damages for an injury received in a collision of two boats on Lake Sakakawea is governed by the three-year statute of limitations in federal law, rather than the six-year limitation in state law.
Doan v. City of Bismarck , 2001 ND 152, 632 N.W.2d 815
Summary judgment rarely should be granted in negligence cases because issues involving reasonableness standards generally are inappropriate for summary disposition.
A landowner owes a duty to lawful entrants to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances and owes a duty to an injured party if the landowner has control over the property where the injury occurred.
Under the doctrine of retained control, an employer who hires an independent contractor is liable for harm to others for whom the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, if the employer retains control of an part of the work and causes harm by failing to exercise such control with reasonable care.
In negligence actions, customs or practices do not necessarily establish the standard of care, but may be evidence of whether conduct meets the general standard of reasonable care under the circumstances.
Rodenburg v. Fargo-Moorhead Y.M.C.A. , 2001 ND 139, 632 N.W.2d 407
In reviewing a jury's findings, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and the court determines only if substantial evidence supports it.
A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
If nonresidents purposely direct their activities toward North Dakota, a North Dakota court may be justified in exercising personal jurisdiction over them.
Under North Dakota's comparative fault law, "fault" includes negligent and intentional conduct; a negligent tortfeasor's conduct is compared with an intentional tortfeasor's conduct, and their liability is several, not joint, with each being liable only for the amount of damages attributable to that party.
McDowell v. Gillie , 2001 ND 91, 626 N.W.2d 666
Stopping at the scene of an accident and inquiring whether any assistance is needed can constitute the rendering of aid and assistance within the meaning of the Good Samaritan Act.
Generally, issues involving the reasonable person standard and a person's subjective state of mind are inappropriate for disposition by summary judgment.
State ex rel. Olson v. Harrison , 2001 ND 99, 627 N.W.2d 153
The State has not consented to suit without proper service of process.
Where no official with authority to accept service of process for the State was served in accordance with N.D.R.Civ.P. 4, the State has not been properly served.
When a tribal court does not have personal jurisdiction over the State, the tribal court's order is not appropriate for recognition as a matter of comity.
When a tribal court's order is not appropriate for recognition as a matter of comity, the State is not required to exhaust remedies available in tribal court.
Praus v. Mack , 2001 ND 80, 626 N.W.2d 239
A trial court may grant parties on a side of litigation additional peremptory challenges if they have essentially adverse or antagonistic interests.
An expert witness may not be permitted to express an opinion if the facts disclosed by the evidence are such that it may be assumed the jury is capable of understanding them and arriving at its own conclusion.
A trial court's failure to instruct the jury about the violation of a safety regulation is not prejudicial error, if the complaining party had the opportunity to argue the theory to the jury and the instructions given allowed for a finding of negligence if the jury believed the complaining party's evidence.
Jury instructions on legal principles which illustrate how negligence law is applied in a specific situation are not indispensable if the parties are allowed to argue their theory of the case and the instructions given adequately inform the jury of the law.
One or more jurors in a civil case making an improper unauthorized visit to the scene of the accident is not prejudicial in the absence of a showing it influenced the verdict.
Young v. Johnson , 2001 ND 79, 629 N.W.2d 585
Appeal from district court order granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).
Weathers v. Peters , 2001 ND 23, 625 N.W.2d 264
Denial of Motion to Exclude Evidence of results of a Blood Alcohol Concentration test and Judgment on Jury Verdict dismissing claims on the merits and with prejudice are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Vogel v. Braun , 2001 ND 29, 622 N.W.2d 216
A prison inmate may access funds in his release aid account if authorized by the warden.
A trial court may deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis if the action is totally without merit.
A party requesting oral argument under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a) cannot complain about a lack of notice of a time change brought about at his request.
Moszer v. Witt , 2001 ND 30, 622 N.W.2d 223
A jury verdict which assesses fault to a person after finding the person's negligence was not a proximate cause is a clearly inconsistent and perverse verdict.
Litigating parties have a right to have exceptions noted to the instructions to which they did not agree.
A party is entitled to a new jury trial when the court so injects itself into the jury deliberation process on the merits that the parties have been denied their right to have the jury determine the facts on the instructions given to them as approved by the parties.
When a party challenges the constitutionality of an act in an action where neither the state nor an agency or officer thereof is a party, the party raising the constitutional issue must notify the attorney general, who may then intervene on behalf of the State.
Kautzman v. McDonald , 2001 ND 20, 621 N.W.2d 871
Absent the timely filing of a notice of claim against the state or one of its employees, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a lawsuit against them.
When a plaintiff brings an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court must initially decide whether a defendant's conduct reasonably may be regarded as "extreme and outrageous."
The owner of a domestic animal which is killed or injured by the negligent or willful act of a third person proximately resulting in that death or injury is entitled to recover for the loss suffered.
The decision by law enforcement officers whether the plaintiffs' dogs posed a danger to the officers or to others, thereby justifying the dogs' destruction, does not fall within the discretionary function exception to political subdivision liability.
Lang v. Binstock , 2001 ND App 1, 622 N.W.2d 241
Summary judgment dismissing an action for conversion of personal property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6).
Lang v. State , 2001 ND App 2, 622 N.W.2d 238
Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits relitigation of claims or issues that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties or their privies, and which were resolved by final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, generally prohibits relitigation in a second action based on a different claim, of issues of fact or law which were, or must have been, determined in the prior suit.
Without citations to relevant authority or supportive reasoning, an argument is without merit.
Syvertson v. Malaktaris , 2000 ND 211, 622 N.W.2d 432
Judgment dismissing a complaint under Rule 12(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
Schuh v. Weiss , 2000 ND 180, 622 N.W.2d 432
Judgment awarding damages for cost of repair and loss of use and enjoyment of real property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Stibbe v. Saunders , 2000 ND 117, 617 N.W.2d 131
Summary judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6).
Sullivan v. Pulkrabek , 2000 ND 107, 611 N.W.2d 162
The measure of damages for injury to property, caused by breach of an obligation not arising from a contract, is the lower of the reasonable cost of repair or the diminution in value.
Burke v. ND Dept. of Corrections & Rehab. , 2000 ND 85, 609 N.W.2d 729
A prison regulation which infringes on an inmate's rights will not be struck down if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
A prison inmate cannot recover either damages or equitable relief against the State under state antitrust law.
Mountrail County v. Hoffman , 2000 ND 49, 607 N.W.2d 901
A county may sue for abatement of a public nuisance caused by a junkyard and auto graveyard located within 1,000 feet of a state highway.
A local zoning ordinance cannot contravene federal or state law.
Exercise of the police power to abate a public nuisance does not entitle a property owner to compensation.
Sissell v. Nagel , 2000 ND 4, 609 N.W.2d 455
Order Denying a Motion to Vacate an Order of Dismissal summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Lang v. Schafer , 2000 ND 2, 603 N.W.2d 904
The notice-of-claim requirements under N.D.C.C. 32-12.2-04 apply only if a plaintiff seeks money damages from the state or a state employee.
Proof of actual damage proximately caused by a misrepresentation or nondisclosure is an essential element of a tort action for fraud and deceit.
Black v. Abex Corp. , 1999 ND 236, 603 N.W.2d 182
Where the record contains no evidence to support an essential element of the plaintiff's claim, the defendant may move for summary judgment by merely pointing out the lack of evidence, and need not support its motion with affidavits or other "evidence."
To prevail on a market share liability claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the products which may have caused the injury or illness posed equivalent risks of harm.
"Alternative liability" is available only when all persons who may have caused the injury are before the court.
Syvertson v. Heit , 1999 ND 207, 606 N.W.2d 137
Dismissal of civil suit summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).
Peterson v. Traill County , 1999 ND 197, 601 N.W.2d 268
Not every exercise of judgment involves a discretionary function for the purposes of governmental immunity.
The personal injury exception to governmental immunity for political subdivisions applies when a personal injury arises directly out of the execution of a discretionary function or decision itself, regardless of whether it is caused by an allegedly negligent affirmative act or omission to act.
Gottbreht v. State of ND , 1999 ND 159, 598 N.W.2d 794
Mandamus is available to compel an administrative agency to perform a ministerial duty the law requires the agency to perform, but not to direct how, or in whose favor, an agency decides a case.
Mandamus is not available to compel performance of a discretionary act.
Issuance of a writ of mandamus is discretionary, and the Supreme Court will not reverse a trial court's denial of a writ, absent an abuse of discretion.
Eckman v. Stutsman County , 1999 ND 151, 598 N.W.2d 494
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a change of venue when there is no evidence in the record that holding a trial in the courthouse where the accident occurred denied the plaintiff a fair and impartial trial.
Jones v. Meyer,dba 50's Cafe , 1999 ND 141, 603 N.W.2d 705
Trial court judgment awarding damages for sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4).
Blikre v.ACandS, Inc. , 1999 ND 96, 593 N.W.2d 775
The ten-year statute of repose under N.D.C.C. 28-01-44 does not apply to claims against a manufacturer or seller for injury caused by exposure, during construction, to a defective product, even though the defendant installed the product as part of an improvement to real property.
Reed v. UND , 1999 ND 25, 589 N.W.2d 880
Res judicata precludes relitigating a claim that was decided on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.
An unambiguous agreement exonerating a sponsor from liability for injuries incurred in a ten kilometer road race is enforceable.
Under N.D.C.C. 32-03.2-02, an express or tacit agreement to commit a tortious act is required to establish concerted action necessary for joint liability.
Hurt v. Freeland , 1999 ND 12, 589 N.W.2d 551
Absent a special relationship or interference with the driver, there is no basis for liability on the part of passengers of an intoxicated driver.
An action for civil conspiracy requires a showing of damages.
Wishnatsky v. Huey , 1998 ND App 8, 584 N.W.2d 859
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and an offensive contact with the person of the other results.
A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
Gessner v. City of Minot , 1998 ND 157, 583 N.W.2d 90
Service of a summons and complaint upon a city manager, instead of a member of the city's governing body, is insufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over the city.
Codefendants are united in interest, for purposes of having service upon one constitute service upon the other, only when the two parties are in such relation to each other with regard to the subject matter of the plaintiff's action that they will fall or stand together, a judgment against one will result in liability upon the other, and neither can raise a defense which is unavailable to the other.
Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment dismissal of claims a Water Management District was directly or vicariously liable for the drowning death of a child who fell from a flood control structure sponsored by the District.
Barta v. Hinds , 1998 ND 104, 578 N.W.2d 553
Special jury verdict awarding plaintiff $5,604.70 for pain and suffering, but nothing for medical expenses, is inconsistent and contrary to the evidence.
Robert v. Aircraft Inv. Co., Inc. , 1998 ND 62, 575 N.W.2d 672
Negligence may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including application of the res ipsa doctrine.
A trial court's finding the elements of res ipsa have been met must be supported by reasonable evidence in the record.
In a negligence action, a defendant may prove a measure of damages different from the one elected by the plaintiff, but has the burden to prove it is a more appropriate measure.
This court will not consider questions first raised on appeal.
Freed v. Unruh , 1998 ND 34, 575 N.W.2d 433
An unpleaded affirmative defense of release, tried by the implied consent of the parties and ruled upon by the trial court in a small claims proceeding, barred the plaintiff's action.
Hougum v. Valley Memorial Homes , 1998 ND 24, 574 N.W.2d 812
Assuming a tort claim for intrusion upon seclusion exists in North Dakota, summary judgment dismissal of the claim is proper when the plaintiff fails to raise a disputed issue of fact the defendants' actions constituted an intentional intrusion upon seclusion which was objectionable to a reasonable person.
Summary judgment is improper where disputed factual issues exist about whether an employer terminated an employee for lawful activity off the employer's premises in violation of the North Dakota Human Rights Act.
Nelson v. Gillette , 1997 ND 205, 571 N.W.2d 332
A political subdivision employee's sexual abuse of a child in the custody of Social Services may constitute an act within the employee's scope of employment under NDCC 32-12.1-03 & 04.
A stipulation between a claimant and an employee that released the employee from liability also released the County from vicarious liability.
Summary judgment on a claim of negligent supervision by the County was precluded because the appellant raised genuine issues of disputed fact.
Pederson v. Kolschefsky , 1997 ND 211, 575 N.W.2d 224
Jury verdict and denial of a motion for new trial summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
Braaten v, Deere and Co. , 1997 ND 202, 569 N.W.2d 563
The Stutsman County District Court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling.
Because the district court did not apply the doctrine, we will not consider whether it is appropriate for a district court to apply an equitable tolling doctrine not based on statute.
Hurt v. Freeland , 1997 ND 194, 569 N.W.2d 266
The trial court's summary judgment dismissing some but not all of the defendants is not appealable without certification under Rule 54(b), NDRCivP.
Sanctions were assessed against attorney under Rule 13, NDRAppP, for failure to comply with the rules governing preparations of the appendix on appeal.
Stanley v. Turtle Mountain Gas & Oil , 1997 ND 169, 567 N.W.2d 345
In a premises liability action based upon negligence, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment as the prior owners of the property did not owe a duty of care to the firemen who were injured on the property after the prior owners had sold their interest and relinquished control of the property.
Messer v. Bender , 1997 ND 103, 564 N.W.2d 291
The Supreme Court will not consider issues not raised or preserved below.
Burr v. Kulas , 1997 ND 98, 564 N.W.2d 631
RICO statute of limitation, Chapter 12.1-6.1, N.D.C.C., rather than the statute of limitation in actions against state or its employees, 28-01-22.1, N.D.C.C., applies to RICO claim. Trial court's summary judgment on statute of limitation grounds was improper because questions of fact regarding plaintiff's RICO claim still existed.
L.C. v. R.P. , 1997 ND 96, 563 N.W.2d 799
A stipulation to dismiss a lawsuit against a servant releases claims against the master for vicarious liability arising from the servant's acts. In an action alleging the church hierarchy assumed a fiduciary duty to a parishioner for sexual misconduct by a pastor, summary judgment was proper where the parishioner presented no evidence to show that the church hierarchy assumed a fiduciary duty to the parishioner.
Barnes v. Gates , 1997 ND 68, 565 N.W.2d 505
Trial court's denial of motion for new trial affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
Keator v. Gale , 1997 ND 46, 561 N.W.2d 286
The release of a vicariously liable master does not automatically release the servant from liability for his own direct negligence.
State ex rel. Heitkamp v Family Life Services , 1997 ND 37, 560 N.W.2d 526
Individual whose First Amendment right to receive ministry is not adequately represented by existing defendants should have been allowed to intervene as a defendant in an action to dissolve two nonprofit corporations with charitable, educational, and religious purposes.
Wishnatsky v. Huey , 1997 ND 35, 560 N.W.2d 878
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order, because the alleged conduct of the defendant was not the type of intimidating or harassing behavior necessitating a restraining order.
Filler v. Bragg , 1997 ND 24, 559 N.W.2d 225
On appeal from denial of a motion to vacate, the trial court must give a reasonable time to respond between denial of motion to dismiss and entry of default judgment.
Anderson v. A.P.I. Company , 1997 ND 6, 559 N.W.2d 204
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of the plaintiff's state-of-the-art expert witness in an asbestos-related personal injury action. The trial court is in a superior position to gauge the potential prejudice of an attorney's misconduct and its probable effect on the jury. When a litigant fails to draw the court's attention to relevant parts of the record, judges are not obligated to search the record for evidence to support the litigant's position.
Delzer v. United Bank of Bismarck , 1997 ND 3, 559 N.W.2d 531
Fraudulently inducing another to enter into a contract, by making a promise with no intention of performing it, is actionable fraud that permits punitive damages to be awarded. The trial court's instruction that "[t]he measure of damages is the amount that will compensate for all detriment proximately caused by the Bank's deceit, whether or not it could have been anticipated," was a correct statement of tort law. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the jury's punitive damages award as excessive.
Pulkrabek v. Sletten , 557 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 1996)
A letter written to the State Parole Board at the request of a prisoner to be considered at a parole hearing is an absolutely privileged communication under N.D.C.C. 14-02-05(2).
Goodleft v. Gullickson , 556 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 1996)
Under N.D.C.C. 32-21-03, the decedent's grandmother was not entitled to bring a wrongful death claim as a 'surviving mother or father,' or in her capacity as personal representative of the decedent's estate.
Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 17(a), the trial court should have granted the decedent's grandmother a reasonable time for the substitution of the decedent's parents as plaintiffs, or for the parents' ratification of the wrongful death claim.
Sternberger v. City of Williston , 556 N.W.2d 288 (N.D. 1996)
For summary judgment, there is no evidence that the City of Williston was negligent in the maintenance of its snow-storage lot under premises liability.
Vanover v. Kansas City Life , 553 N.W.2d 192 (N.D. 1996)
The Supreme Court overruled Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, Inc., 66 N.D.578, 268 N.W. 400 (1936), to the extent that it requires proof of special damages for recovery in an action for libel per quod.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was substantial evidence that the plaintiff's reputation was damaged by letters saying the plaintiff had been terminated for cause.
Peterson v. Huso , 552 N.W.2d 83 (N.D. 1996)
A victim's repressed memory of past sexual abuse does not constitute a disability under Section 28-01-25, N.D.C.C. The two-year limitation period does not begin to run until the victim knows, or with reasonable diligence should know, a potential claim exists.
Wishnatsky v. Bergquist , 550 N.W.2d 394 (N.D. 1996)
Bachmeier v Wallwork Truck Centers , 544 N.W.2d 122 (N.D. 1996)
Rolin Manufacturing v. Mosbrucker , 544 N.W.2d 132 (N.D. 1996)
Varriano v. Bang , 541 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 1996)
Olson v. City of Garrison , 539 N.W.2d 663 (N.D. 1995)
Western Life Trust v. State , 536 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 1995)
Vanover v. Kansas City Life , 535 N.W.2d 424 (N.D. 1995)
Larson v. Williams Electric Coop, Inc. , 534 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1995)
Levey v. State Developmental Center , 533 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 1995)
Lacher v. Anderson , 526 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 1994)
Jensen v. Wrolstad , 526 N.W.2d 113 (N.D. 1994)
Wyatt v. R.D. Werner Co. , 524 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 1994)
Smith v. City of Grand Forks , 525 N.W.2d 251 (N.D. 1994)
Bulman v. Hulstrand Const. , 521 N.W.2d 632 (N.D. 1994)
Zimprich v. Broekel , 519 N.W.2d 588 (N.D. 1994)
Kummer v. City of Fargo , 516 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 1994)
Reisenauer v. Schaefer , 515 N.W.2d 152 (N.D. 1994)
Brakke v. Kensrud , 514 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 1994)
Hart Construction Company v. American Family Mutual Ins. , 514 N.W.2d 384 (N.D. 1994)
The United Hospital v. D'Annunzio v. Grand Forks Co. , 514 N.W.2d 681 (N.D. 1994)
Fisher v. Johnson , 508 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1993)
Peterson v. Weber , 509 N.W.2d 273 (N.D. 1993)
Bachmeier v Wallwork Truck Cntr , 507 N.W.2d 527 (N.D. 1993)
Kukowski v. Simonson Farm, Inc. , 507 N.W.2d 68 (N.D. 1993)
Marchand v. City of Harvey , 509 N.W.2d 273 (N.D. 1993)
Bulman v. Hulstrand Construction , 503 N.W.2d 240 (N.D. 1993)
SHector v. Metro Centers, Inc. , 498 N.W.2d 113 (N.D. 1993)
Madler v. McKenzie County , 496 N.W.2d 17 (N.D. 1993)
Lang v. Burleigh County Sheriff's Department , 496 N.W.2d 24 (N.D. 1993)
McDaniel v. Petersen , 497 N.W.2d 100 (N.D. 1992)
Dale v. Cronquist , 493 N.W.2d 667 (N.D. 1992)
Pfaff v. Underwood Farmers Elevator , 497 N.W.2d 100 (N.D. 1992)
Olson v. Griggs County , 491 N.W.2d 725 (N.D. 1992)
Butz v. World Wide, Inc. , 492 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 1992)
Brakke v. Kensrud , 489 N.W.2d 594 (N.D. 1992)
Rassier v. Houim , 488 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1992)
Jones v. Ahlberg , 489 N.W.2d 576 (N.D. 1992)
McLean v. The Kirby Company , 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992)
Community Credit Union of New Rockford v. Homelvig , 487 N.W.2d 602 (N.D. 1992)
Olson v. University of North Dakota , 488 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1992)
Sime v. Tvenge Associates Architects & Planners, P.C. , 488 N.W.2d 606 (N.D. 1992)
Muller v. Custom Distributors, Inc. , 487 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1992)
Omlid v. Sweeney , 484 N.W.2d 486 (N.D. 1992)
Richmond v. Haney , 480 N.W.2d 751 (N.D. 1992)
Ceartin v. Ochs , 479 N.W.2d 863 (N.D. 1992)
Spieker v. Westgo, Inc. , 479 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1992)
Smith v. City of Grand Forks , 478 N.W.2d 370 (N.D. 1991)
Klindtworth v. Burkett , 477 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1991)
Stuhlmiller v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. , 475 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 1991)
Buegel v. City of Grand Forks , 475 N.W.2d 133 (N.D. 1991)
Gorley v. Parizek , 475 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1991)
Romsos v. Sorben , 474 N.W.2d 83 (N.D. 1991)
Nagel v. Emmons County ND Water Resource District , 474 N.W.2d 46 (N.D. 1991)
Volk v. Wisconsin Mortgage Assurance Co. , 474 N.W.2d 40 (N.D. 1991)
Souris River Telephone Mutual Aid Coop. v. ND Workers Comp. Bureau , 471 N.W.2d 465 (N.D. 1991)
Butz v. Werner , 470 N.W.2d 224 (N.D. 1991)
Yassin v. Schroeder , 469 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 1991)
Becker Electric, Inc. v. City of Bismarck , 469 N.W.2d 159 (N.D. 1991)
Ebach v. Ralston , 469 N.W.2d 801 (N.D. 1991)
Schobinger v. Ivey , 467 N.W.2d 728 (N.D. 1991)
Biesterfeld v. Asbestos Corporation of America , 467 N.W.2d 730 (N.D. 1991)
Leadbetter v. Rose , 467 N.W.2d 431 (N.D. 1991)
Witthauer v. Burkhart Roentgen, Inc. , 467 N.W.2d 439 (N.D. 1991)
Vantage, Inc. v. Carrier Corp. , 467 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 1991)
Madler v. McKenzie County , 467 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 1991)
Gronneberg v. Hoffart , 466 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1991)
Wanner v. Getter Trucking, Inc. , 466 N.W.2d 833 (N.D. 1991)
Harwood State Bank v. Charon , 466 N.W.2d 601 (N.D. 1991)
Rupp v. American Crystal , 465 N.W.2d 614 (N.D. 1991)
Transamerica v. Farmers Insurance Exchange , 463 N.W.2d 641 (N.D. 1990)
Binstock v. Fort Yates Public School Dist. No. 4 , 463 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1990)
Zimprich v. ND Harvestore Systems, Inc. , 461 N.W.2d 425 (N.D. 1990)
Westman v. Dessellier , 459 N.W.2d 545 (N.D. 1990)
Miles Homes v. City of Westhope , 458 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1990)
Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. General Casualty Co. , 458 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 1990)
Smith v. Vestal , 456 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 1990)
Erickson v. Schwan , 453 N.W.2d 765 (N.D. 1990)
Hanson v. Williams County , 452 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1990)
Stoner v. Nash Finch, Inc. , 446 N.W.2d 747 (N.D. 1989)
Erdmann v. Thomas , 446 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 1989)
Fargo Women's Health Organization v. FM Women's Help and Caring , 444 N.W.2d 683 (N.D. 1989)
Osland v. Osland , 442 N.W.2d 907 (N.D. 1989)
Wald v. City of Grafton , 442 N.W.2d 910 (N.D. 1989)
Benjamin v. Benjamin , 439 N.W.2d 527 (N.D. 1989)
Butz v. Werner , 438 N.W.2d 509 (N.D. 1989)
Aanenson v. Bastien , 438 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 1989)
Grenz v. Kelsch , 436 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1989)
Muchow v. Lindblad , 435 N.W.2d 918 (N.D. 1989)
Morrison v. Grand Forks Housing Authority , 436 N.W.2d 221 (N.D. 1989)
O'Fallon v. Pollard , 427 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1988)
Emter v. Bulk, Inc. , 423 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 1988)
Zimprich v. North Dakota Harvestore Systems , 419 N.W.2d 912 (N.D. 1988)
Nelson v. Trinity Medical Center , 419 N.W.2d 886 (N.D. 1988)
Young Bird v. Jerry Harmon Motors, Inc. , 421 N.W.2d 466 (N.D. 1988)
Larson v. Baer , 418 N.W.2d 282 (N.D. 1988)
Ostlund Chemical Co. v. Norwest Bank of Jamestown , 417 N.W.2d 833 (N.D. 1988)
Lund v. Buhr , 417 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 1987)
Fastow v. Burleigh County Water Resource District , 415 N.W.2d 505 (N.D. 1987)
Hellman v. Thiele , 413 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1987)
Beuchler Construction v. City of Williston , 413 N.W.2d 336 (N.D. 1987)
Weisser v. Grand Forks Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. , 406 N.W.2d 696 (N.D. 1987)
Board of County Commissioners v. Peterson Excavating, Inc. , 406 N.W.2d 674 (N.D. 1987)
Williams v. State , 405 N.W.2d 615 (N.D. 1987)
Bunce v. Sahr , 408 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1987)
Troutman v. Pierce, Inc. , 402 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 1987)
Thiele v. Security State Bank of New Salem , 396 N.W.2d 295 (N.D. 1986)
Kunkel v. First National Bank of Devils Lake , 393 N.W.2d 265 (N.D. 1986)
Bishop v. Gajeski , 393 N.W.2d 537 (N.D. 1986)
Tom Beuchler Construction, Inc. v. City of Williston , 392 N.W.2d 403 (N.D. 1986)
Wills v. Schroeder Aviation, Inc. , 390 N.W.2d 544 (N.D. 1986)
Shulstad v. Berkel, Inc. , 389 N.W.2d 346 (N.D. 1986)
Hanson v. Williams County , 389 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 1986)
Belgrade v. Rosenau , 388 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1986)
Geo-Mobile, Inc. v. Dean Bender Chevrolet, Inc. , 386 N.W.2d 918 (N.D. 1986)
Ross v. Scott , 386 N.W.2d 18 (N.D. 1986)
Meshefski v. Shirnan Corporation , 385 N.W.2d 474 (N.D. 1986)
Weisenberger v. Senger , 381 N.W.2d 187 (N.D. 1986)
Knoff v. American Crystal Sugar Co. , 380 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1986)
City of Minot v. Freelander , 380 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1986)
Hoerr v. Northfield Foundry & Machine Co. , 376 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 1985)
Reule v. Bismarck Public School District , 376 N.W.2d 32 (N.D. 1985)
Ternes v. Knispel , 374 N.W.2d 879 (N.D. 1985)
Stokka v. Cass County Electric Cooperative, Inc. , 373 N.W.2d 911 (N.D. 1985)
Kaylor v. Iseman Mobile Homes , 369 N.W.2d 101 (N.D. 1985)
City of Minot v. Freelander , 368 N.W.2d 514 (N.D. 1985)
Overboe v. Sjolin , 366 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 1985)
Loken v. Magrum , 364 N.W.2d 79 (N.D. 1985)
Keller v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co. , 360 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 1984)
Calavera v. Vix , 356 N.W.2d 901 (N.D. 1984)
Jamestown Sand & Gravel v. Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc. , 351 N.W.2d 727 (N.D. 1984)
Horejsi v. Anderson , 353 N.W.2d 316 (N.D. 1984)
Nilson v. Markestad , 353 N.W.2d 312 (N.D. 1984)
Kaufman v. Meditec, Inc. , 353 N.W.2d 297 (N.D. 1984)
Bridston v. Dover Corporation , 352 N.W.2d 194 (N.D. 1984)
Garcia v. Overvold Motors, Inc. , 351 N.W.2d 110 (N.D. 1984)
Hagert v. Hatton Commodities, Inc. , 350 N.W.2d 591 (N.D. 1984)
Thoring v. Bottonsek , 350 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 1984)
Amerada Hess Corporation v. Furlong Oil & Minerals Co. , 348 N.W.2d 913 (N.D. 1984)
Weeda's Bath and Kitchen Shop v. Adams, Inc. , 347 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 1984)
Rippley v. Sande , 344 N.W.2d 490 (N.D. 1984)
Day v. General Motors Corporation , 345 N.W.2d 349 (N.D. 1984)
Olson v. Molacek Brothers , 341 N.W.2d 375 (N.D. 1983)
Leno v. Ehli , 339 N.W.2d 92 (N.D. 1983)
Ouren v. Krebsbach , 338 N.W.2d 836 (N.D. 1983)
Jerry Harmon Motors, Inc. v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association , 337 N.W.2d 427 (N.D. 1983)
McCroskey v. Fettes , 336 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 1983)
Stillwell v. Cincinnati Inc. , 336 N.W.2d 618 (N.D. 1983)
Blair v. Boulger , 336 N.W.2d 337 (N.D. 1983)
Sanford v. Sanden , 333 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 1983)
Fisher v. Knapp , 332 N.W.2d 76 (N.D. 1983)
Fortier v. Traynor , 330 N.W.2d 513 (N.D. 1983)
Felchle v. Medina Cheese Co. , 329 N.W.2d 619 (N.D. 1983)
Schlenk v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., Inc. , 329 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 1983)
DeLair v. County of LaMoure , 326 N.W.2d 55 (N.D. 1982)
Gross v. Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. , 322 N.W.2d 679 (N.D. 1982)
Kerzmann v. Rohweder , 321 N.W.2d 84 (N.D. 1982)
Kunnanz v. Tuff , 317 N.W.2d 804 (N.D. 1982)
Moritz v. Medical Arts Clinic, P.C. , 315 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 1982)
Schleicher v. Western State Bank of Devils Lake , 314 N.W.2d 293 (N.D. 1982)
Powers v. Martinson , 313 N.W.2d 720 (N.D. 1981)
Bismarck Public School District No. 1 v. Ritterbush Associates, P.C. , 313 N.W.2d 712 (N.D. 1981)
McCroskey v. Fettes , 310 N.W.2d 773 (N.D. 1981)
Pfliger v. Peavey Co. , 310 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1981)
Wilson v. General Motors Corporation , 311 N.W.2d 10 (N.D. 1981)
Peterson v. City of Golden Valley , 308 N.W.2d 550 (N.D. 1981)
Saba v. Counties of Barnes , 307 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1981)
Steckler v. Miller & Holmes, Inc. , 303 N.W.2d 560 (N.D. 1981)
United States, ex rel. Hall v. Hansen , 303 N.W.2d 349 (N.D. 1981)
McCroskey v. Cass County , 303 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1981)
Johnson v. Monsanto Co. , 303 N.W.2d 86 (N.D. 1981)
Skoog v. City of Grand Forks , 301 N.W.2d 404 (N.D. 1981)
Keller v. Darling , 298 N.W.2d 789 (N.D. 1980)
Schell v. Schumacher , 298 N.W.2d 474 (N.D. 1980)
Clairmont v. State Bank of Burleigh County Trust Co. , 295 N.W.2d 154 (N.D. 1980)
Thoreson v. Citizens State Bank, Rugby , 294 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 1980)
Law v. Maercklein , 292 N.W.2d 86 (N.D. 1980)
Sheets v. Graco, Inc. , 292 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1980)
Becker v. Doubek , 292 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 1980)
Morgel v. Winger , 290 N.W.2d 266 (N.D. 1980)
Randall v. Anderson , 286 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 1979)
Feuerherm v. Ertelt , 286 N.W.2d 509 (N.D. 1979)
Schmidt v. Plains Electric, Inc. , 281 N.W.2d 794 (N.D. 1979)
Fettig v. Whitman , 285 N.W.2d 517 (N.D. 1979)
Hanson v. Garwood Industries , 279 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1979)
Wirth v. Mayrath Industries, Inc. , 278 N.W.2d 789 (N.D. 1979)
Conrad v. Suhr , 274 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 1979)
Trautman v. Day , 273 N.W.2d 712 (N.D. 1979)
Lang v. Basin Electric Power Cooperative , 274 N.W.2d 253 (N.D. 1979)
Falkenstein v. City of Bismarck , 268 N.W.2d 787 (N.D. 1978)
Kirton v. Williams Electric Cooperative , 265 N.W.2d 702 (N.D. 1978)
Bauer v. Graner , 266 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 1978)
Kirchoffner v. Quam , 264 N.W.2d 203 (N.D. 1978)
Miller v. Trinity Medical Center , 260 N.W.2d 4 (N.D. 1977)
Mott Grain Co. v. First Nat'l Bank and Trust Co. of Bismarck , 259 N.W.2d 667 (N.D. 1977)
Staiger v. Gaarder , 258 N.W.2d 641 (N.D. 1977)
South v. Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp. , 260 N.W.2d 212 (N.D. 1977)
Schneider v. Baisch , 256 N.W.2d 370 (N.D. 1977)
Hetletved v. Hansen , 256 N.W.2d 360 (N.D. 1977)
Broderson v. Boehm , 253 N.W.2d 864 (N.D. 1977)
McKechnie v. O'Neil , 252 N.W.2d 875 (N.D. 1977)
O'Leary v. Coenen , 251 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1977)
Bladow v. Bladow , 249 N.W.2d 917 (N.D. 1977)
Dehn v. Otter Tail Power Company , 251 N.W.2d 404 (N.D. 1976)
Dehn v. Otter Tail Power Company , 248 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 1976)
Demaray v. Ridl , 249 N.W.2d 219 (N.D. 1976)
Dugas v. Felton , 249 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1976)
Herman v. General Irrigation Co. , 247 N.W.2d 472 (N.D. 1976)
Sendelbach v. Grad , 246 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 1976)
Bellon v. Bellon , 244 N.W.2d 227 (N.D. 1976)
Eichenberger v. Wilhelm , 244 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 1976)
Rodgers v. Freborg , 240 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1976)
Haider v. Finken , 239 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1976)
Sayler v. Holstrom , 239 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 1976)
Grenz v. O'Rourke , 235 N.W.2d 881 (N.D. 1975)
Wrangham v. Tebelius , 231 N.W.2d 753 (N.D. 1975)
Jahner v. Jacob , 233 N.W.2d 791 (N.D. 1975)
Jore v. Saturday Night Club, Inc. , 227 N.W.2d 889 (N.D. 1975)
Anderson v. Miller's Fairway Foods , 225 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 1975)
Johnson v. American Motors Corp. , 225 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 1974)
Kitto v. Minot Park District , 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D. 1974)
Revoir v. Kansas Super Motels of N.D. , 224 N.W.2d 549 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Nelson , 222 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 1974)
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Rollohome Corp. , 221 N.W.2d 722 (N.D. 1974)
Perleberg v. General Tire and Rubber Co. , 221 N.W.2d 729 (N.D. 1974)
Ellendale Farmers Union v. Davis , 219 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1974)
Seibel v. Symons Corp. , 221 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1974)
Skjonsby v. Ness , 221 N.W.2d 70 (N.D. 1974)
Sprecher v. Magstadt , 213 N.W.2d 881 (N.D. 1973)
Stein v. Ohlhauser , 211 N.W.2d 737 (N.D. 1973)
Van Ornum v. Otter Tail Power Co. , 210 N.W.2d 188 (N.D. 1973)
Van Ornum v. Otter Tail Power Co. , 210 N.W.2d 207 (N.D. 1973)
Munro v. Privratsky , 209 N.W.2d 745 (N.D. 1973)
Rau v. Kirschenman , 208 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1973)
Moum v. Maercklein , 201 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1972)
Bismarck Baptist Church v. Wiedemann Industries, Inc. , 201 N.W.2d 434 (N.D. 1972)
Strandness v. Montgomery Ward , 199 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1972)
Schatz v. Jerke , 199 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 1972)
Werth v. Ashley Realty Co. , 199 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1972)
State ex rel. Stuart v. Dickinson Cheese Co., Inc. , 200 N.W.2d 59 (N.D. 1972)
Rice v. Chrysler Motors Corp. , 198 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 1972)
Mager v. Mager , 197 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 1972)
Whetham v. Bismarck Hospital , 197 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1972)
Curns v. Martin , 193 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1971)
Armstrong v. Miller , 189 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 1971)
Robertson's Inc. v. Renden , 189 N.W.2d 639 (N.D. 1971)
Scranton Grain v. Lubbock Machine and Supply , 186 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 1971)
Schmidt v. Leben , 184 N.W.2d 611 (N.D. 1971)
Krise v. Gillund , 184 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 1971)
Emo v. Milbank Mutual Ins. Co. , 183 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1971)
Bjerke v. Heartso , 183 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 1971)
Trautman v. New Rockford-Fessenden Co-Op Transport Association , 181 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 1970)
Crosby v. Sande , 180 N.W.2d 164 (N.D. 1970)
Schalesky v. Soo Line Railroad , 180 N.W.2d 236 (N.D. 1970)
Foerster v. Fischbach-Moore, Inc. , 178 N.W.2d 258 (N.D. 1970)
Volk v. Auto-Dine , 177 N.W.2d 525 (N.D. 1970)
Leake v. Hagert , 175 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 1970)
Giese v. Engelhardt , 175 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 1970)
Wolff v. Light , 169 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 1969)
Walth v. Daub , 166 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 1969)
Christensen v. Midstate Aerial Applicators , 166 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1969)
Aune v. City of Mandan , 167 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 1969)
Aune v. City of Mandan , 166 N.W.2d 559 (N.D. 1969)
Creswell v. Guerard , 164 N.W.2d 907 (N.D. 1969)
Willard v. Owens , 164 N.W.2d 910 (N.D. 1969)
Matteson v. Polanchek , 164 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 1969)
Jamestown Plumbing & Heating Co. v. City of Jamestown , 164 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 1968)
Remmick v. Mills , 165 N.W.2d 61 (N.D. 1968)
Lauritsen v. Lammers , 161 N.W.2d 804 (N.D. 1968)
Linington v. McLean County , 161 N.W.2d 487 (N.D. 1968)
Larson v. Meyer , 161 N.W.2d 165 (N.D. 1968)
Muhlhauser v. Archie Campbell Constr. Co. , 160 N.W.2d 524 (N.D. 1968)
Wasepka v. Dukart , 160 N.W.2d 217 (N.D. 1968)
Johnson v. Tomlinson , 160 N.W.2d 49 (N.D. 1968)
Christensen v. Farmers State Bank of Richardton , 157 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1968)
Kelmis v. Cardinal Petroleum Co. , 156 N.W.2d 710 (N.D. 1968)
Gleson v. Thompson , 154 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 1967)
Intlehouse v. Rose , 153 N.W.2d 810 (N.D. 1967)
Wall v. Zeeb , 153 N.W.2d 779 (N.D. 1967)
Jones v. Boeing , 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D. 1967)
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Barnes , 153 N.W.2d 89 (N.D. 1967)
Hillius v. Wagner , 152 N.W.2d 468 (N.D. 1967)
Fisher v. Mon Dak Truck Lines, Inc. , 150 N.W.2d 711 (N.D. 1967)
Fox v. Higgins , 149 N.W.2d 369 (N.D. 1967)
Bartholomay v. St. Thomas Lumber Co. , 148 N.W.2d 278 (N.D. 1966)
Ternes v. Farmers Union , 144 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1966)
Thomas v. City of Devils Lake , 143 N.W.2d 718 (N.D. 1966)
McKenzie v. Hanson , 143 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 1966)
Heid v. Shafer , 140 N.W.2d 584 (N.D. 1966)
Julson v. Loyal Order of Moose , 140 N.W.2d 39 (N.D. 1966)
Fetzer v. Minot Park District , 138 N.W.2d 601 (N.D. 1965)
Lang v. General Motors Corp. , 136 N.W.2d 805 (N.D. 1965)
Gibbs v. Jacobsen , 136 N.W.2d 550 (N.D. 1965)
Rath v. Armour and Company , 136 N.W.2d 142 (N.D. 1965)
Larson v. Meyer , 135 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1965)
Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Vantine Paint & Glass Company , 133 N.W.2d 426 (N.D. 1965)
Gunderson v. Johnson , 132 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1965)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/23/2008