Docket Info

Highlight

Section 32-42-02, N.D.C.C., does not violate the equal-protection provisions of N.D. Const. art. I, § 21.

The right to recover for personal injuries is an important substantive right subject to the intermediate standard of equal-protection analysis.

A district court’s decision whether to grant or deny a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b) rests entirely within its discretion, and review of a denial of a new trial motion is limited to deciding whether the court manifestly abused its discretion.

Testimony from a physician that a plaintiff’s medical condition is permanent and would worsen is sufficient to establish foundation for future medical expenses.

Evidence of medical expenses can be admitted without an expert medical opinion that the expenses were necessitated by the defendant’s conduct.

When considering claims of prejudicial misconduct, courts consider the nature of the comments the jury heard, their probable effect on the jury in the context of the entire trial, and the district court’s instructions to the jury.

A district court has discretion to balance the probative value of proffered evidence against the dangers enumerated in N.D.R.Ev. 403.

A district court does not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony whenever specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact, even if the expert does not possess a particular expertise or specific certification.

When the verdict is reasonably within the scope of the evidence presented and the instructions of the court, the plaintiff is entitled to have judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict.

Briefs

Counsel