- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Paulson v. Meinke
352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984)2 Citing cases
Blanchard v. N. Dak. Workers Comp. Bureau
1997 N.D. 118 (N.D. 1997) Cited 19 timesProviding "[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.
Birmingham Retail v. Eastwood Festival
608 So. 2d 340 (Ala. 1992) Cited 2 timesIn 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.