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

2 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. Hanson v. Williams County

    452 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1990)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that the "`denial of the motion must be sustained on appeal unless it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion.'"

    Later, we limited our holding in Krohnke to situations where all of the evidence was documentary in nature. In Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984), and McCroskey v. Fettes, 336 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 1983), we held that, where some witnesses testified in court and other testimony was admitted by deposition, the trial court's ability to observe the demeanor of the witnesses who testified in person called for application of the "clearly erroneous" standard. Any possible doubt about application of the "clearly erroneous" standard in this case has been clarified by the amendment to the Explanatory Note for NDRCivP 52, effective January 1, 1986.