Bell v. Plus

6 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. Rath

    2023 N.D. 183 (N.D. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Bell v. Pro Tune Plus, 2013 ND 147, ¶ 5, 835 N.W.2d 858. "[O]nly a party or person aggrieved by a judgment or order of the district court can appeal from it to the Supreme Court."

  2. Gonzalez v. Perales

    2023 N.D. 145 (N.D. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    For example, a district court order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not appealable. Bell v. Pro Tune Plus, 2013 ND 147, ¶ 4, 835 N.W.2d 858. Such an order neither "determines the action [nor] prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken" because generally a party may immediately file a new complaint. Id.

  3. Johnson v. Menard, Inc.

    2021 N.D. 19 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 10 times
    In Johnson, we held a prevailing plaintiff is entitled under N.D.C.C. § 27-08.1-04 to reasonable attorney's fees for a successful appeal.

    [¶17] A plaintiff's decision to bring an action in small claims court is irrevocable. Bell v. Pro Tune Plus , 2013 ND 147, ¶ 3, 835 N.W.2d 858. However, the defendant's decision to remove the action to district court is also irrevocable.

  4. Swenson v. Mahlum

    2019 N.D. 144 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Deeming terms of primary lease "unrelated" to claim for damages by sublessor against sublessee

    Conrad v. Wilkinson , 2017 ND 212, ¶ 5, 901 N.W.2d 348. "This Court has noted that, because either side may commence another action after a civil complaint is dismissed without prejudice, the order dismissing the action neither ‘determines the action’ nor ‘prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.’ " Bell v. Pro Tune Plus , 2013 ND 147, ¶ 4, 835 N.W.2d 858 (quoting Triple Quest, Inc. v. Cleveland Gear Co., Inc. , 2001 ND 101, ¶ 7, 627 N.W.2d 379 ). "However, a dismissal without prejudice may be final and appealable if the plaintiff cannot cure the defect that led to dismissal, or if the dismissal has the practical effect of terminating the litigation in the plaintiff’s chosen forum." Conrad , at ¶ 5 (quoting Rodenburg v. Fargo-Moorhead Young Men’s Christian Ass’n , 2001 ND 139, ¶ 12, 632 N.W.2d 407 ).

  5. Everett v. State

    892 N.W.2d 898 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    Rather, the district court order he has appealed, denying him leave for further filings, is more akin to an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice. Under N.D.C.C. § 28–27–02(1), an appeal may be taken from "[a]n order affecting a substantial right made in any action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken." Generally, a dismissal without prejudice is not appealable because either party may commence another action after a civil complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Vogel v. Marathon Oil Co. , 2016 ND 104, ¶ 6, 879 N.W.2d 471 ; Riemers v. Hill , 2014 ND 80, ¶ 8, 845 N.W.2d 364 ; Bell v. Pro Tune Plus , 2013 ND 147, ¶ 4, 835 N.W.2d 858. "[T]he order dismissing the action neither ‘determines the action’ nor ‘prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.’ " Bell , at ¶ 4 (quoting Triple Quest, Inc. v. Cleveland Gear Co., Inc. , 2001 ND 101, ¶ 7, 627 N.W.2d 379 ).

  6. Everett v. State

    2017 N.D. 93 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 9 times

    Rather, the district court order he has appealed, denying him leave for further filings, is more akin to an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice. Under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(1), an appeal may be taken from "[a]n order affecting a substantial right made in any action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken." Generally, a dismissal without prejudice is not appealable because either party may commence another action after a civil complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Vogel v. Marathon Oil Co., 2016 ND 104, ¶ 6, 879 N.W.2d 471; Riemers v. Hill, 2014 ND 80, ¶ 8, 845 N.W.2d 364; Bell v. Pro Tune Plus, 2013 ND 147, ¶ 4, 835 N.W.2d 858. "[T]he order dismissing the action neither 'determines the action' nor 'prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.'" Bell, at ¶ 4 (quoting Triple Quest, Inc. v. Cleveland Gear Co., Inc., 2001 ND 101, ¶ 7, 627 N.W.2d 379).