Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home

31 Citing cases

  1. Makedonsky v. N.D. Dept

    2008 N.D. 49 (N.D. 2008)   Cited 12 times

    There is evidence supporting the Department's credibility and factual determinations regarding the transfers and Minnie Makedonsky's intent, and we do not reweigh that evidence. [¶ 15] We also reject Minnie Makedonsky's claim that her ratification of the gifts in September 2005 was retroactive to the actual date of the transfers under Matter of Mehus' Estate, 278 N.W.2d 625, 630 (N.D. 1979) and Askew v. Joachim Mem'l Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 237 (N.D. 1975). A principal's valid ratification can relate back to the date an agent transferred the principal's property.

  2. Weber v. Towner Cty

    565 F.2d 1001 (8th Cir. 1977)   Cited 23 times
    Applying North Dakota law and Section 324A

    Failure by the board to formally pass upon each and every road service job provided by the county under Peterson's supervision and paid for by the township throughout the years need not negate the presumption of ratification of the well-established business practice which arises from the board's failure to repudiate the arrangements or to terminate such road repair services to the township. See Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226 (N.D. 1975); Russell v. Waterloo Threshing Mach. Co., 17 N.D. 248, 116 N.W. 611 (1908). The unauthorized act of an agent purportedly done for the benefit of a principal can be subsequently ratified by the purported principal either expressly or by implication through conduct of the principal which is inconsistent with an intention to repudiate the agent's action.

  3. Next Step v. Redmon

    879 N.W.2d 71 (N.D. 2016)   Cited 1 times
    Discussing common law rule that "unincorporated associations are incapable of holding title to real property because they are not legal entities"

    ”); 2 Patton and Palomar on Land Titles § 416 (3d. ed.2015).[¶ 5] The Next Step argues: “Since Askew [v. Joachim Mem. Home, 234 N.W.2d 226 (N.D.1975) ] the common law no longer applies to unincorporated associations and their ability to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, to deny their existence.” In Askew, we modified the common law to allow unincorporated associations to be sued when they have held themselves out to be legal entities; we based our holding on the principle of estoppel.

  4. Joachim Memorial Home v. Askew

    404 F. Supp. 1154 (D.N.D. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    The Home appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which affirmed. Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226 (N.D. 1975). A petition for rehearing was denied on October 24, 1975.

  5. Ebel v. Engelhart

    2024 N.D. 168 (N.D. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    ; Askew v. Joachim Mem'l Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 237 (N.D. 1975) (concluding unpled ratification issue before the Court where issue was argued, evidence was offered, and both parties and the district court were aware issue was "intertwined with the basic question of the contract's validity").

  6. Grengs v. Grengs

    2023 N.D. 239 (N.D. 2023)

    Fourth, did GLG ratify or fail to timely disavow Grengs' acts once it learned of them? Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 237-38 (N.D. 1975) (ratification may be by express or implied conduct that is inconsistent with principal's intent to repudiate an agent's action); Kahn v. Britt, 765 S.E.2d 446, 455 (Ga.Ct.App. 2014) (principal ratifies agent's actions by failing to timely object to those actions); Great American Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Natalya Rodionova Med. Care, P.C., 956 N.W.2d 148, 154 (Iowa 2021) (same).

  7. Johnson v. Mark

    2013 N.D. 128 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    The abandonment issue was tried, if not by express consent, by the implied consent of the parties. See Askew v. Joachim Mem'l Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 237 (N.D.1975). See also SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker, 2013 ND 110, ¶¶ 6–16.

  8. Westby v. Schmidt

    2010 N.D. 44 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 10 times

    The corporation knowingly and voluntarily accepted the benefits of the contract. We conclude the corporation is bound by the agreement with Westby. Cf. Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 237-39 (N.D. 1975) (association was bound by an agreement signed by its president when evidence from the association's actions revealed it had ratified the agreement). We conclude the district court did not err in denying the appellants' motion to dismiss the corporation as a defendant.

  9. Freed v. Unruh

    575 N.W.2d 433 (N.D. 1998)   Cited 14 times
    Allowing plaintiff to proceed with lawsuit would be analogous to an improper splitting of cause of action

    E.g., Wildfang Miller Motors, Inc. v. Rath, 198 N.W.2d 210 (N.D. 1972). See also Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226 (N.D. 1975); Frank v. Daimler-Benz, A.G., Stuttgart, 226 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 1975); 6A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1493 (1990). Liberal application of the rule is especially appropriate in the context of the small claims procedure, which is intended to be simple and informal.

  10. A-Plus Janitorial Carpet Cleaning v. Tewca

    1997 OK 37 (Okla. 1997)   Cited 44 times

    The continuous-ownership requirement is based on the belief that only a party with an ongoing proprietary interest in the corporation on behalf of which action is maintained will adequately represent the corporation's interest in a derivative suit. Taxicab Drivers' Local Union v. H. E. Pittman, Okla., 322 P.2d 159, 166 (1958) (it is only where the legislature confers a legal status on a voluntary group that it enjoys the rights and duties comparable to those of a corporation, except in particular situations where the law will not permit the group to deny its assumed status); Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134, 140, 48 S.Ct. 288, 289, 72 L.Ed. 500, 503 (1928); Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 234 (N.D. 1975); Lyons v. American Legion Post No. 650 Realty Co., 172 Ohio St. 331, 175 N.E.2d 733, 735 (1961); Bloom v. American Express Co., 222 Minn. 249, 23 N.W.2d 570, 572 (1946); Jardine v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County, 213 Cal. 301, 2 P.2d 756, 759 (1931). See in this connection Comment, Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act (1992):