Ennis v. Dasovick

22 Citing cases

  1. Zink v. Enzminger Steel, LLC

    2011 N.D. 122 (N.D. 2011)   Cited 4 times

    We have previously upheld a district court's ability to dismiss a case with prejudice in the absence of a motion when the complaint is inadequate. See Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386, 389 (N.D. 1993) ("A trial court may, on its own initiative, and in the cautious exercise of its discretion, dismiss a complaint for failure to state a valid claim. . . ."); Albrecht v. First Federal Savings Loan Ass'n, 372 N.W.2d 893, 894-95 (N.D. 1985) (district court did not err in dismissing without a prior motion a complaint that was "patently frivolous"). "This power must be exercised sparingly and with great care to protect the rights of the parties," and "[a] trial court should dismiss under Rule 12(b) only when certain it is impossible for the plaintiff to prove a claim for which relief can be granted."

  2. Burke v. Department of Corrections and Rehab

    609 N.W.2d 729 (N.D. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    [¶ 4] In reviewing an appeal from a Rule 12(b) dismissal, we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, taking as true the allegations in the complaint. Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386, 389 (N.D. 1993). When a plaintiff has merely imperfectly stated what may be an arguable claim, leave to amend is usually appropriate.

  3. Riemers v. Jaeger

    2013 N.D. 30 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    See Frey v. City of Jamestown, 548 N.W.2d 784, 787 (N.D.1996) (injunctive relief appropriate if municipality fails to comply with statutory procedures for annexation and zoning, but not to test wisdom of annexation or zoning decision). In Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386, 392 (N.D.1993) (quotation and citations omitted), this Court discussed requirements for injunctive relief: “A writ of injunction under N.D.C.C. Chapter 32–06 is the correlative of the writ of mandamus under N.D.C.C. Chapter 32–34; the former restrains action while the latter compels action.

  4. Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho

    521 U.S. 261 (1997)   Cited 1,728 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because "navigable waters uniquely implicate sovereign interests," there exists a "strong presumption of state ownership" of these waters

    S.W.2d 609, 616 (Ky. 1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 938 (1990); Carso v. Board of Liquidation of State Debt, 205 La. 368, 371-374, 17 So.2d 358, 360 (1944); Jones v. Maine State Highway Comm'n, 238 A.2d 226, 229-230 (Me. 1968); Thompson v. Auditor General, 261 Mich. 624, 628-630, 247 N.W. 360, 362 (1933); L. K. v. Gregg, 425 N.W.2d 813, 818, n. 3 (Minn. 1988); Kleban v. Missouri, 363 Mo. 7, 15-17, 247 S.W.2d 832, 837 (1952); Rein v. Johnson, 149 Neb. 67, 68-69, 30 N.W.2d 548, 551-552 (1947), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 814 (1948); Grinnell v. State, 121 N. H. 823, 825-826, 435 A.2d 523, 525 (1981); Abelson's, Inc. v. New Jersey State Board of Optometrists, 5 N.J. 412, 416-418, 75 A.2d 867, 869 (1950); Ramah Navaho School Bd. v. Bureau of Revenue, 104 N.M. 302, 308, 720 P.2d 1243, 1249 (Ct.App. 1986); Carter v. City of Las Cruces, 121 N.M. 580, 583, 915 P.2d 336, 338 (Ct.App. 1996); Corum v. University of North Carolina, 330 N.C. 761, 771, and n. 3, 772, 413 S.E.2d 276, 283, and n. 2 (1992); Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386, 392 (N.D. 1993); Schwarz v. Board of Trustees, 31 Ohio St.3d 267, 271-274, 510 N.E.2d 808, 812-813 (1987); Gast v. State, 36 Or. App. 441, 443-447, 585 P.2d 12, 15-17 (1978); Philadelphia Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 574-577, 190 A.2d 111, 113-114 (1963); Ware Shoals Mfg. Co. v. Jones, 78 S.C. 211, 216-219, 58 S.E. 811, 813 (1907); White Eagle Oil Refining Co. v. Gunderson, 48 S.D. 608, 614-619, 205 N.W. 614, 617-618 (1925); American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Conway, 146 Vt. 579, 586-587, 508 A.2d 408, 413 (1986); State ex rel. Robinson v. Superior Court, 182 Wn. 277, 281-284, 46 P.2d 1046, 1049-1050 (1935); Pittsburgh Elevator Co. v. West Va. Bd. of Regents, 310 S.E.2d 675, 685 (W.Va. 1983); Wisconsin Fertilizer Assn. v. Karns, 39 Wis.2d 95, 100-102, 158 N.W.2d 294, 297 (1968); Oyler v. State, 618 P.2d 1042, 1047-1048 (Wyo. 1980). Other States have permitted such suits to proceed without discussing the jurisdictional basis for the action.

  5. Alex v. Schuetzle

    Case No. 1:05-cv-113 (D.N.D. Jun. 5, 2006)

    In the absence of habeas relief being available under ch. 32-22, there may be other possibilities for obtaining state district court relief, including, separately or in combination: an action for a declaratory judgment under ch. 32-23; a request for an affirmative injunction under ch. 32-06; or a request for a writ of mandamus under ch. 32-34. While the court is not aware of any North Dakota cases that have permitted a challenge to a deprivation of good-time credits under these statutes, the North Dakota Supreme Court has held that a declaratory judgment action could be brought by a prisoner to litigate past and continuing rights to receive medical care.Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1993). Also, courts in other states have relied upon these kinds of remedies to consider challenges to the administration of prisoners' sentences, including the denial of parole and deprivation of good-time credits. See e.g., Wayne v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 83 F.3d 994, 996-97 (8th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that Missouri law sanctions several devices for challenging a parole denial — the filing of a declaratory judgment action, petitioning for habeas corpus relief, and seeking a writ of mandamus); Scott v. Sumner, 887 F.2d 1089, 1989 WL 123648 (9th Cir. October 3, 1989) (unpublished) (observing that mandamus proceedings are available in Nevada to state prisoners challenging alleged misinterpretations of statutes regulating the grant of credits for good behavior); Chapman v. Norris, 2005 WL 1922582, *3 (E.D.Ark. July 25, 2005) (noting that declaratory and mandamus proceedings can be used in Arkansas to challenge a denial of good-time credits); Jones v. Watkins, 945 F.Supp. 114

  6. Aune v. State

    2024 N.D. 99 (N.D. 2024)

    We noted "this power must be exercised most sparingly and with great care to protect the rights of the respective parties," agreeing "with the caveat that a sua sponte dismissal is a radical step, not to be taken lightly." Id. at 894-95; see also Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386, 389 (N.D. 1993) ("A trial court may, on its own initiative, and in the cautious exercise of its discretion, dismiss a complaint for failure to state a valid claim under Rule 12(b), N.D.R.Civ.P."); Patten v. Green, 397 N.W.2d 458, 459 (N.D. 1986) ("The district court may, on its own initiative, and in the cautious exercise of its discretion, dismiss a complaint for failure to state a valid claim.").

  7. Cichos v. Dakota Eye Inst., P.C.

    2019 N.D. 234 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    "In an appeal from a Rule 12(b) dismissal, we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, taking as true the allegations in the complaint." Ennis v. Dasovick , 506 N.W.2d 386, 389 (N.D. 1993) (citations omitted). "A trial court should dismiss under Rule 12(b) only when certain it is impossible for the plaintiff to prove a claim for which relief can be granted."

  8. State v. Romanick

    2017 N.D. 42 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 3 times
    In Romanick, the State requested a supervisory writ to grant an amendment to a criminal complaint to correct a clerical error.

    [¶ 7] This case alleges criminal conduct regarding an elected public official's duties and responsibilities to provide adequate medical care for inmates while in the official's custody and control. See United Hosp. v. D'Annunzio , 514 N.W.2d 681, 683 (N.D. 1994) (county responsible for prisoner's medical care while in custody, subject to reimbursement from prisoner); Ennis v. Dasovick , 506 N.W.2d 386, 389 (N.D. 1993) (deliberate indifference to prisoner's serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment); N.D.C.C. § 12–44.1–14 (administrator of correctional facility shall ensure that inmates have adequate medical care). The underlying allegations of inadequate inmate care by an elected public official implicate a significant and vital public interest in providing accountability for a public official's actions or inactions. The charges against Sheriff Kukowski involve the death of an inmate while involuntarily in governmental custody, which has ramifications beyond those ordinarily associated with a misdemeanor.

  9. Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson

    2014 N.D. 192 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 21 times
    Holding a request for oral argument under Rule 3.2 is complete when the requesting party has secured a time for the argument and serves notice upon all other parties

    A self-represented litigant may not act on behalf of another, which would amount to the unauthorized practice of law, and any action taken by John Benson on behalf of Brian Benson is void. See Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386, 393 (N.D.1993); N.D.C.C. § 27–11–01; see also Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 2005 ND 190, ¶¶ 12–13, 705 N.W.2d 836 (discussing representation by a non-attorney on behalf of a corporation resulting in all documents signed by the non-attorney deemed void). [¶ 3] Benson emailed an unsigned notice of appeal and faxed a signed notice of appeal on February 3, 2014.

  10. Johnson v. State

    2010 N.D. 213 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Stating court may not dismiss claim on basis of res judicata on its own motion

    We warned the district courts to exercise this power "sparingly and with great care to protect the rights of the parties, and the court should dismiss under Rule 12(b) only when certain it is impossible for the plaintiff to prove a claim for which relief can be granted." Id. (citing Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386, 389 (N.D. 1993)). III.