 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Sanderson v. Walsh County, No. 20050303,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action against various county and state officials in their official capacities was properly dismissed based on insufficient service of process where an arrestee served the officials by mail; N.D. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) required personal delivery.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc., No. 20050171,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C.S. § 227, did not preempt the application of N.D. Cent. Code § 51-28-02 to automated political polling calls made from Virginia to residents in North Dakota; thus, summary judgment finding a telemarketer to be in violation of the North Dakota statute was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State v. Mertz (In re Mertz), No. 20050360,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was not clear and convincing evidence attorney violated N.D. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.4(a) as his letter to the opposing party was legitimate and served a purpose other than to coerce a party into changing or withholding information. Attorney violated N.D. R. Prof'l Conduct 4.4 where statements existed to embarrass or burden the opposing party.
|
|||||
| Choice Fin. Group v. Schellpfeffer, No. 20050273,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lender sued corporation and guarantor, who did not invoke N.D. R. Civ. P. 56(f) procedures. Trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment for lender because possibility that discovery could yield evidence favorable to a party opposing summary judgment was not reason to deny continuance.
|
|||||
| Steen & Berg Co. v. Berg (In re Estate of Berg), No. 20050155,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a corporation in its action for specific performance to compel the estate to sell the decedent's stock certificates because the action was claim against the estate under N.D. Cent. Code § 30.1-01-06(7), and it was barred by the limitation clause in N.D. Cent. Code § 30.1-19-03(2)(b).
|
|||||
| In re Judicial Vacancy, No. 20060035,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After conducting its review of a judicial vacancy pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 27-05-02.1, the Supreme Court of North Dakota determined that the judgeship was necessary for effective judicial administration in the Southeast Judicial District where the vacancy did not appear to be the most appropriate vacancy in the district to transfer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
