Hamilton v. Woll

33 Citing cases

  1. Markgraf v. Welker

    2015 N.D. 303 (N.D. 2015)   Cited 28 times
    Acknowledging N.D.C.C. § 28–01–04 applies to adverse possession, acquiescence, and other types of quiet title actions

    Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 9, 823 N.W.2d 754 (quoting Wenco v. EOG Res., Inc., 2012 ND 219, ¶ 8, 822 N.W.2d 701). “Summary judgment is inappropriate if neither party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law or if reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts.” Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Creighton, 2013 ND 73, ¶ 11, 830 N.W.2d 556 (quoting Riedlinger v. Steam Bros., Inc., 2013 ND 14, ¶ 10, 826 N.W.2d 340).

  2. Wilkinson v. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands of N.D.

    2017 N.D. 231 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Wilkinson v. Board of University & School Lands, 2017 ND 231, 903 N.W.2d 51 ("Wilkinson I "), we reversed the judgment and remanded for the court to determine whether N.D.C.C. ch. 61-33.1, governing state ownership of the Missouri riverbed, applied and governs ownership of the minerals in this case.

    [¶ 26] In considering the issues on remand, the district court must be careful not to make findings about disputed factual issues without holding a trial. Summary judgment is not appropriate if there are genuine issues of material fact or if reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences that can reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts. Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 9, 823 N.W.2d 754. [¶ 27] The plaintiffs argue the district court made findings on disputed facts, including whether the property was flooded as a result of the Garrison Project and Lake Sakakawea.

  3. EOG Resources, Inc. v. Soo Line Railroad

    2015 N.D. 187 (N.D. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 9, 823 N.W.2d 754 (quoting Wenco v. EOG Res., Inc., 2012 ND 219, ¶ 8, 822 N.W.2d 701). Summary judgment may not be granted if reasonable differences of opinion exist about the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts. Hamilton, at ¶ 9.

  4. Haugland v. City of Bismarck

    2014 N.D. 51 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    [¶ 4] The district court decided the remanded issues by summary judgment, “which is a procedural device for promptly resolving a controversy on the merits without a trial if there are no disputed issues of material fact or inferences that can reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts, or if the only issues to be resolved are questions of law.” Haugland, 2012 ND 123, ¶ 21, 818 N.W.2d 660. “ ‘A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 9, 823 N.W.2d 754 (quoting Wenco v. EOG Res., Inc., 2012 ND 219, ¶ 8, 822 N.W.2d 701). “ ‘In determining whether summary judgment was appropriately granted, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the record.’ ” Wenco, at ¶ 8 (quoting Arndt v. Maki, 2012 ND 55, ¶ 10, 813 N.W.2d 564).“ ‘On appeal, this Court decides whether the information available to the district court precluded the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitled the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Hamilton, at ¶ 9 (quoting Wenco, at ¶ 8). “ ‘Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.

  5. Golden v. SM Energy Co.

    2013 N.D. 17 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 26 times
    In Golden, an oil well operator appealed from a summary judgment declaring that certain plaintiffs were entitled to ORRIs in leases and lands covered by a decades-old letter agreement.

    Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 9, 823 N.W.2d 754 (quoting Wenco v. EOG Resources, Inc., 2012 ND 219, ¶ 8, 822 N.W.2d 701). A

  6. Dahms v. Legacy Plumbing, LLC

    2024 N.D. 53 (N.D. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    [¶14] "A motion for summary judgment is not an opportunity to conduct a mini-trial." Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 13, 823 N.W.2d 754 (quoting Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Smetana, 2009 ND 74, ¶ 11, 764 N.W.2d 665). "This Court has repeatedly held that summary judgment is inappropriate if the court must draw inferences and make findings on disputed facts to support the judgment."

  7. Schmitz v. N. Dakota State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners

    2022 N.D. 113 (N.D. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    [¶18] This Court has held that "[a] motion for summary judgment is not an opportunity to conduct a mini-trial." Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 13, 823 N.W.2d 754 (quoting Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Smetana, 2009 ND 74, ¶ 11, 764 N.W.2d 665). "This Court has repeatedly held that summary judgment is inappropriate if the court must draw inferences and make findings on disputed facts to support the judgment."

  8. City of Glen Ullin v. Schirado

    2021 N.D. 72 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    "Klein v. Sletto, 2017 ND 26, ¶ 7, 889 N.W.2d 918 (quoting Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 9, 823 N.W.2d 754). [¶10] "Summary judgment is appropriate when 'there is no dispute as to either the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts, or whenever only a question of law is involved.'" Rooks v. Robb, 2015 ND 274, ¶ 10, 871 N.W.2d 468 (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Clark, 332 N.W.2d 264, 267 (N.D. 1983)).

  9. Young v. Burleigh Morton Det. Ctr.

    2021 N.D. 8 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record. Golden v. SM Energy Co. , 2013 ND 17, ¶ 7, 826 N.W.2d 610 (quoting Hamilton v. Woll , 2012 ND 238, ¶ 9, 823 N.W.2d 754 ). A

  10. G & D Enters. v. Liebelt

    2020 N.D. 213 (N.D. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Ceynar v. Barth , 2017 ND 286, ¶ 10, 904 N.W.2d 469 (quoting Hokanson v. Zeigler , 2017 ND 197, ¶ 14, 900 N.W.2d 48 ). "A motion for summary judgment is not an opportunity to conduct a mini-trial." Hamilton v. Woll , 2012 ND 238, ¶ 13, 823 N.W.2d 754 (quoting Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Smetana , 2009 ND 74, ¶ 11, 764 N.W.2d 665 ). "This Court has repeatedly held that summary judgment is inappropriate if the court must draw inferences and make findings on disputed facts to support the judgment." Id. (quoting Farmers Union Oil Co. , at ¶ 10 ).