Matter of Norman

5 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Adoption of J.S.P.L

    532 N.W.2d 653 (N.D. 1995)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that a father convicted of murdering his wife in front of their children had no due process right to personally cross-examine witnesses in the children's adoption hearing

    A Rule 3.2 request for oral argument must be granted to any requesting party, including a prison inmate, who has timely served and filed a brief. Matter of Norman, 521 N.W.2d 395, 397 (N.D. 1994). See also Anton v. Anton, 442 N.W.2d 445, 446 (N.D. 1989). Rule 3.2, however, requires that "[t]he party requesting oral argument must secure a time for the argument and serve notice upon all other parties."

  2. Matter of Norman

    524 N.W.2d 358 (N.D. 1994)   Cited 4 times

    Norman's first issue was resolved by our temporary remand. In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of John, James III, and Jamie Norman, 521 N.W.2d 395 (N.D. 1994). We address each of the others in turn.

  3. Jackson v. Narvais (In re L.Z.N.)

    895 N.W.2d 747 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Holding a district court does not have a duty to ensure a party’s presence at the trial, telephonically or otherwise

    " Walbert v. Walbert , 1997 ND 164, ¶ 9, 567 N.W.2d 829 (citing In re Adoption of J.W.M. , 532 N.W.2d 372, 377 (N.D. 1995) ). Although prisoners maintain a due process right to reasonable access to the courts, their "right to appear personally at a civil proceeding is limited." Id. at ¶ 8, (quoting Norman v. Leingang , 521 N.W.2d 395, 397 (N.D. 1994) ); Curtiss v. Curtiss , 2016 ND 197, ¶ 8, 886 N.W.2d 565. One way a prisoner's right to appear can be satisfied is by allowing his or her appearance via telephone. St. Claire v. St. Claire , 2004 ND 39, ¶ 6, 675 N.W.2d 175. "However, [t]he district court does not have a duty to ensure a party's presence at the trial, telephonically or otherwise."

  4. Walbert v. Walbert

    567 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding that the trial court's finding that there is "good cause for the name change" is not "sufficiently definitive" to facilitate effective appellate review

    "[A] prisoner's right to appear personally at a civil proceeding is limited." Norman v. Leingang, 521 N.W.2d 395, 397 (N.D. 1994). "[A] convict does not have a constitutional right to personally appear in a civil suit where he has been permitted to appear through counsel and by deposition, if appropriate." In Interest of F.H., 283 N.W.2d 202, 209 (N.D. 1979). "Any right to appear personally would have to rest upon convincing reasons and would ultimately be left to the sound discretion of the trial court.

  5. Gosbee v. Martinson

    701 N.W.2d 411 (N.D. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that the language of Rule 3.2 is mandatory, and the trial court does not have discretion to refuse to hold a hearing when one has been properly requested. See, e.g., Syvertson v. State, 2000 ND 185, ¶ 10, 620 N.W.2d 362; In re Adoption of J.S.P.L., 532 N.W.2d 653, 657 (N.D. 1995); In re Norman, 521 N.W.2d 395, 397 (N.D. 1994); Ennis v. Berg, 509 N.W.2d 33, 38 (N.D. 1993); Anton v. Anton, 442 N.W.2d 445, 446 (N.D. 1989). Accordingly, if Gosbee's request for oral argument was properly submitted, he was entitled to a hearing and the trial court erred in refusing to provide one.