Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Paulson v. Meinke

352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Paulson v. Meinke

3 Citing cases

  1. Birmingham Retail v. Eastwood Festival

    608 So. 2d 340 (Ala. 1992)   Cited 2 times
    In Birmingham Retail Center Associates, Ltd. v. Eastwood Festival Associates, 608 So.2d 340 (Ala.1992), our supreme court, citing Trail Pontiac–GMC Truck, Inc. v. Evans, 540 So.2d 645 (Ala.1988), and Hall v. Hall, 445 So.2d 304 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), construed the former version of Rule 63 as investing a successor judge, who has reviewed a transcript, with the authority to order a new trial based on substantive grounds.

    E.g., Faris v. Rothenberg, 648 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Colo. 1982); Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191, 193-94 (N.D. 1984). One commentator has suggested that a successor judge consider four factors: 1) the point to which the trial has proceeded; 2) the complexity of the trial; 3) the importance of witness credibility; and 4) the parties' good faith.

  2. Jones v. Ahlberg

    489 N.W.2d 576 (N.D. 1992)   Cited 27 times
    Reversing and remanding case where "the trial court did not clearly enunciate the standard of liability . . .[s]ome of the court's statements indicate that the court may have been using" the wrong standard

    Because the case is being remanded for a retrial of all factual issues, we deem it appropriate to grant the request. See Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984). Therefore, we remand the case for a new trial before a judge appointed under Administrative Rule 15.

  3. Paulson v. Meinke

    389 N.W.2d 798 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that a transfer of land for less than one-third the land's value, an "apparent windfall of nearly $60,000," was clearly unjust enrichment

    Therefore, this court reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984). Following a second trial, Judge Eckert denied Oscar and June any recovery. Oscar appeals, for himself and as personal representative of the estate of June (who has died since this action was commenced), contending that certain findings were clearly erroneous and that Oscar was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.