WSI v. Oden
- State of North Dakota by
Workforce Safety and Insurance, Plaintiff and Appellee
Chris Oden, Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : WORKERS COMPENSATION
- Appeal From
Case No. 2018-CV-02953
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
James S. Hill
Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. If a defendant challenges the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. The plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. If the court relies only on pleadings and affidavits, the court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Although an evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, or insufficiency of service of process may be preferable under certain circumstances, the district court nonetheless retains wide discretion and considerable procedural leeway in deciding the motion.
A district court’s decision whether to grant jurisdictional discovery lies within its sound discretion.
WSI has full power and authority to hear and determine all questions within its jurisdiction, and its decisions are final and are entitled to the same faith and credit as a judgment of a court of record.
Accord and satisfaction is an affirmative defense to a claim. An essential element of accord and satisfaction is an agreement evidencing the parties’ mutual assent.
Except for jurisdictional matters and the taking of judicial notice, the appellate court will generally consider only those issues raised in the district court. The appellate court has discretion whether to grant a parties’ request for judicial notice on appeal.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||08/09/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL|
|2||08/13/2019||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 08/15/2019|
|3||08/14/2019||Received $125 filing fee|
|4||08/15/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|5||08/15/2019||Notice served on David C. Thompson and Jacqueline S. Anderson|
|6||09/09/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1-93)|
|7||09/11/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED MAY 1, 2019|
|8||09/11/2019||Certificate of Service for Transcript|
|9||10/18/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|10||10/18/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 11/12/2019|
|11||11/12/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|12||11/12/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 11/19/2019|
|15||11/26/2019||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to ATB/ATA (no service doc)|
|16||12/03/2019||Rec'd proof of service for corrected ATB/ATA|
|17||12/05/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB/ATA from Central Duplicating|
|18||12/13/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF|
|19||12/13/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 01/17/2020|
|21||01/17/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|23||01/23/2020||Rec'd AEB and AEA back from Central Duplicating|
|24||01/27/2020||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|26||02/04/2020||Rec'd Certificate of Service for Reply Brief|
|27||02/05/2020||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB back from Central Duplicating|
|28||02/24/2020||APPEARANCES: David C. Thompson/Jacqueline S. Anderson|
|29||02/24/2020||ARGUED: David C. Thompson/Jacqueline S. Anderson|
|30||02/24/2020||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|31||02/25/2020||Supplemental citations under N.D.R.App.P. 28(k)||View|
|32||02/27/2020||WSI's Supplemental citations under N.D.R.App.P. 28(k)||View|
|34||11/19/2020||UNANIMOUS OPINION : Jensen, Jon J.||View|
|35||11/19/2020||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee|
|36||11/23/2020||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|38||06/02/2021||Corrected/Substitute Opinion Page (pg 16, para 40, line 3 NW2nd cite corrected from 69 to 691)|