§

Paulson v. Meinke

352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984)
Paulson v. Meinke

3 Citing cases

  1. Blanchard v. N. Dak. Workers Comp. Bureau

    1997 N.D. 118 (N.D. 1997)   Cited 19 times
    Providing "[w]hen read as a whole, the statutory scheme for decisions by an ALJ manifests a legislative intent that an ALJ's decision is a final order when the Legislature has authorized the ALJ to issue a final order, or when the requesting agency has authorized the ALJ to issue a final order"

    In Schultz, 372 N.W.2d at 892, we also said an agency may even reject a hearing officer's recommendation on findings of the credibility of contradictory witnesses. Compare Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191, 193-94 (N.D. 1984) (under NDRCivP 63, if successor judge is not satisfied with findings, conclusions and decision of predecessor judge, successor judge is limited to granting new trial); Holzer v. Jochim, 557 N.W.2d 57, 58-59 (N.D. 1996) (successor judge abused discretion in redeciding the merits of case tried before predecessor judge without affording the parties an opportunity to retry case). As Holzer at 59 explained, a major tenet of due process anticipates that a party receive adequate notice and fair opportunity to be heard by the decision maker.

  2. 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.

  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.