Anderson v. Jeannotte

4 Citing cases

  1. Sandahl v. City Council of City of Larimore

    2016 N.D. 155 (N.D. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    We recognize, however, the effect of our decision vacating the district court judgment is to sustain Larimore's decision ordering the demolition of the building. See Anderson v. Jeannotte, 96 N.W.2d 591, 594 (N.D.1959) (stating that where time for appeal from judgment had expired and untimely appeal from judgment was dismissed, dismissal amounted to affirmance).III

  2. El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State

    123 Ariz. 219 (Ariz. 1979)   Cited 24 times
    Discussing separate functions of levying a tax and computing a tax rate

    Under that theory, commonly encountered in class actions, a judgment in favor of or against a party representing a general class operates as res judicata in favor of or against all who are thus represented. This general principle has been applied to litigation instituted by a taxpayer to determine a public right or matter of public interest so that any judgment rendered therein would bind all other taxpayers. E.g., Williams v. Board of Supervisors of DeSoto County, 139 Miss. 78, 103 So. 812 (1925); Seibert v. City of Columbia, 461 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. 1971); Anderson v. Jeannotte, 96 N.W.2d 591 (N.D. 1959); Gist v. Stamford Hospital District, 557 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.Civ.App. 1977). "Of necessity, absent fraud or bad faith, all residents and taxpayers must be bound by the result of litigation of a public nature carried on by one in similar circumstances and having a common interest."

  3. Hamilton v. Town of Valley Brook

    1971 OK 65 (Okla. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    Questions that were litigated or that could have been litigated in the Rudicki case, a class action, are binding on others similarly situated as property owners and taxpayers of the Town of Valley Brook, and they cannot maintain an action again challenging the validity of formation of the paving district. Anderson v. Jeannotte, N.D., 96 N.W.2d 591 (1959), Petition of Gardiner v. City of Jersey City, 67 N.J. Super. 435, 170 A.2d 820 (1961); Jefferson v. Greater Anchorage Area Borough, Alaska, 451 P.2d 730 (1969). Oklahoma has followed this rule in the cases of City of El Reno v. Cleveland-Trinidad Paving Co., 25 Okla. 648, 107 P. 163; Ellison et al v. Hodges et al, 71 Okla. 16, 174 P. 1089; and Jackson v. Sadler, 172 Okla. 56, 44 P.2d 838.

  4. Humber v. Miller

    101 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 1960)   Cited 9 times
    In Huber v. Miller, 101 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 1960), we held that resident taxpayers lacked standing to appeal the decision of the board of county commissioners.

    Generally, a resident taxpayer has the right to bring an action in his own name and on behalf of all other taxpayers to enjoin the unlawful disposition of public funds, and he is not required to show any interest other than that which he has as a taxpayer. Green v. Beste, N.D., 76 N.W.2d 165; Lang v. City of Cavalier, 59 N.D. 75, 228 N.W. 819; Anderson v. Jeannotte, N.D., 96 N.W.2d 591. The County's share of the money to pay for such farm-to-market road program was to be raised by the levy authorized by the voters in the election approving the program.