Search Tips

Johnson, et al. v. Hovland, et al.

Docket No. 20100043
Oral Argument: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:45am

Docket Info

Title
Mary K. Johnson, Robert G. Liebl,
Gregory D. Liebl and DeAnn R. Liebl, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Bertha Hovland, Lambert Hovland, and
all other persons unknown claiming any
estate in or lien or encumbrance upon
the property described in the Complaint, Defendants and Appellees
v.
EOG Resources, Inc., Intervenor Defendant
Case Type
CIVIL APPEAL : REAL PROPERTY
Appeal From
Case No. 08-C-00098
North Central Judicial District, Mountrail County
Richard L. Hagar
2011 ND 64795 N.W.2d 294
Oral Argument 9/27/2010

Highlight

A district court has wide discretion in deciding whether to permit amended pleadings after the time for an amendment has passed, and the court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend the complaint when a proposed amendment would be futile.
If leave to amend is not sought until after discovery has closed and a summary judgment motion has been docketed, a proposed amendment is properly classified as futile unless the allegations of the proposed amended complaint are supported by substantial evidence.
A party seeking reformation of a written instrument must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the document does not state the parties' intended agreement. Courts grant the high remedy of reformation only upon the certainty of error.


Briefs

Filing Date Description
04/26/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF View
06/16/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF View
07/09/2010 REPLY BRIEF View

Counsel

Party Type Name
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Patrick W Durick - 03141
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Zachary Evan Pelham - 05904
APPELLEE PRIVATE PRACTICE Kevin Joseph Chapman - 05076

(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)

Seq. # Filing Date Description Attachment
1 02/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL : 01/29/2010
2 02/04/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 01/29/2010
3 03/09/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED November 4, 2009 & C.O.S.
4 03/09/2010 DISK of TRA (e-mailed)
5 03/09/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL
6 04/13/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
7 04/13/2010 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT) - Granted : 04/26/2010
8 04/26/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF View
9 04/26/2010 APPELLANT APPENDIX
10 04/26/2010 DISK-ATB
11 05/12/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF
12 05/12/2010 ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 06/17/2010
13 06/16/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF View
14 06/16/2010 APPELLEE APPENDIX
15 06/18/2010 DISK - aeb (e-mailed)
16 06/18/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF
17 06/18/2010 ACTION BY CLERK (MRY) - Granted : 07/13/2010
18 07/09/2010 REPLY BRIEF View
19 07/09/2010 DISK (RYB) (CD) (hand delivery)
20 07/28/2010 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
21 09/27/2010 APPEARANCES:Zachary E. Pelham; Kevin J. Chapman and Tom Ritter, Appellee
22 09/27/2010 ARGUED: Pelham; Chapman
23 09/27/2010 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
24 03/22/2011 DISPOSITION
25 03/22/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION : Kapsner, Carol Ronning View
26 03/22/2011 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee.
27 03/24/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
28 04/15/2011 MANDATE
29 04/20/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE