Friedt v. Moseanko

11 Citing cases

  1. Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Association v. Lucas

    2005 N.D. 26 (N.D. 2005)   Cited 11 times
    Indicating an argument is without merit when a party fails to provide supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities

    [¶ 34] We have often said that a party waives an issue by not providing supporting argument, and without supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit. E.g., Riemers v. Grand Forks Herald, 2004 ND 192, ¶ 11, 688 N.W.2d 167; Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Invs., 2002 ND 65, ¶ 27, 643 N.W.2d 29; Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861, 863 (N.D. 1992); First Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Compass Invs., Inc., 342 N.W.2d 214, 219 (N.D. 1983). Lucas' argument about judicial misconduct is without merit. VIII

  2. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Lynne

    2004 N.D. 166 (N.D. 2004)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that "that particular part" of house on which contractor was working when house fell off support jacks was the entire structure

    "Without citations to relevant authority or supportive reasoning, an argument is assumed to be without merit." Snyder, at ¶ 20 (citing Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861, 863 (N.D. 1992)). [¶ 34] We conclude Lynne did, in fact, perform work on the house and the house was "[t]hat particular part of real property" upon which Lynne directly performed operations.

  3. State v. Ehli

    2004 N.D. 125 (N.D. 2004)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that a probation condition prohibiting the defendant from having contact with minor children under the age of eighteen, including his own, was proper and not a de facto termination of parental rights

    "Without citations to relevant authority or supportive reasoning, an argument is assumed to be without merit." Snyder v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 2001 ND 38, ¶ 20, 622 N.W.2d 712 (citing Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861, 863 (N.D. 1992)). [¶ 16] The conditions for Ehli's probation were originally imposed at the time of his sentencing.

  4. State v. Marshall

    2002 N.D. 3 (N.D. 2002)

    At oral argument, Marshall presented arguments not briefed. With neither citations to relevant authority, nor any supportive reasoning to buttress his claim of sentence correction, Marshall's arguments are without merit. See Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861, 863 (N.D. 1992). We conclude Marshall's appeals are frivolous and completely without merit.

  5. Eggl v. Letvin Equipment Co.

    2001 N.D. 144 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that evidence that a farm tractor was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used was sufficient when it was shown that the tractor could not be used to pull an implement

    E.g., In re J.A.G., 552 N.W.2d 317, 324 (N.D. 1996); Hodek v. Greater Nelson County Consortium, 520 N.W.2d 825, 829 (N.D. 1994); Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861, 863 (N.D. 1992); Lang v. State, 2001 ND App 2, ¶ 8, 622 N.W.2d 238. We conclude the trial court did not err in failing to award damages to Eggl for the initial ineffective attempt to identify and remedy the defect in the tractor.

  6. SNYDER v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKERS COMP. BUR

    2001 N.D. 38 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 14 times
    Applying subsequent amendments of N.D.C.C. § 65-05-08 requiring monthly reports despite not having been in effect on date of injury

    Without citations to relevant authority or supportive reasoning, an argument is assumed to be without merit. Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861, 863 (N.D. 1992). Snyder did not provide any citations to relevant authority or supportive reasoning. His argument is not considered or decided.

  7. Owens v. State

    2001 N.D. 15 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 6 times
    Discussing that Schlup at 318-19 noted successive or abusive petitions for habeas corpus are generally precluded from review

    More significantly for this case we have said we will not consider issues where there is a failure to cite supporting authority and briefing is inadequate. Aaland v. Lake Region Grain Co-op., 511 N.W.2d 244 (N.D. 1994); Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861 (N.D. 1992). [¶ 32] We decide only issues which have been thoroughly briefed and argued.

  8. Hendrickson v. Hendrickson

    2000 N.D. 1 (N.D. 2000)   Cited 52 times
    Holding denying a noncustodial parent visitation with a child is an onerous restriction, such that physical or emotional harm resulting from the visitation must be demonstrated in detail before it is imposed

    [¶ 20] In her reply brief, Diane asserts the trial court erred because it did not allow her to cross-examine the guardian ad litem regarding her report. We do not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief because, under Rule 28(c), N.D.R.App.P., a reply brief must be confined to new matter raised in the appellee's brief.Freidt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861, 863 (N.D. 1992). We recently considered a party's right to cross-examine an investigator in an evidentiary hearing on a motion to change custody.

  9. State v. Steffes

    500 N.W.2d 608 (N.D. 1993)   Cited 50 times
    Summarizing three categories of cases in which courts "have attempted to analyze an accused's right to due process when prosecutors fail[ed] to provide evidence to the defense which [was] within, or potentially within, their purview"

    Because Steffes did not brief this issue under our State Constitution, we will not consider it further. See Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861 (N.D. 1992); Lund v. North Dakota State Highway Dept., 403 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 1987); State v. Patzer, 382 N.W.2d 631 (N.D. 1986). The instruction as proffered by Steffes is based upon North Dakota Jury Instruction (Civil) No. 1625. It is also similar to the instruction as approved by Justice Stevens in his concurring opinion in Arizona v. Youngblood, which provided in part:

  10. Friedt v. Moseanko

    498 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1993)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that proceeds from milk were not "earnings" as defined by N.D.Cent. Code § 32-09.1-03 and 15 U.S.C. § 1673; "So defined, the term "earnings" does not have the broad dictionary meaning that includes "business profits.""

    Over resistance by James Moseanko and Deborah, his spouse, the trial court ordered the garnished funds applied on Friedt's judgment. In Friedt v. Moseanko, 484 N.W.2d 861 (N.D. 1992) ( Moseanko II), we affirmed that order. Meanwhile, Friedt served two more garnishee summons on Cass Clay Creamery on July 26, 1991 and September 13, 1991, and on James on August 6, 1991 and September 20, 1991. Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) appeared and asserted a secured interest in proceeds of milk seized by those garnishments.