Schweitzer v. Mattingley

8 Citing cases

  1. Aune v. State

    2024 N.D. 99 (N.D. 2024)

    [M]otions seeking the recusal of a judge for bias or prejudice are not within the scope of N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21(6), and the assigned judge is not disqualified from acting on matters within the case. See, e.g., Schweitzer v. Mattingley, 2016 ND 231, ¶¶ 14-15, 887 N.W.2d 541 (district court committed reversible error in allowing a different judge to rule on a motion for recusal based on bias). Unlike a demand for a change of judge, "a district court judge is not immediately divested of authority upon the filing of a motion to recuse."

  2. Saastad v. Saastad

    2019 N.D. 279 (N.D. 2019)

    A district court’s award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact reviewed by this Court under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Schweitzer v. Mattingley , 2016 ND 231, ¶ 22, 887 N.W.2d 541. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if, after reviewing the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.

  3. Chisholm v. State

    2019 N.D. 70 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Holding a request for recusal based on bias should be determined by the judge assigned to the case

    [¶15] We have previously held motions seeking the recusal of a judge for bias or prejudice are not within the scope of N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21(6), and the assigned judge is not disqualified from acting on matters within the case. See, e.g. , Schweitzer v. Mattingley , 2016 ND 231, ¶¶ 14-15, 887 N.W.2d 541 (district court committed reversible error in allowing a different judge to rule on a motion for recusal based on bias). Unlike a demand for a change of judge, "a district court judge is not immediately divested of authority upon the filing of a motion to recuse.

  4. Friesner v. Friesner

    2019 N.D. 30 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 10 times

    [¶ 6] A district court’s award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact reviewed by this Court under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Schweitzer v. Mattingley , 2016 ND 231, ¶ 22, 887 N.W.2d 541. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if, after reviewing the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. Innis-Smith v. Smith , 2018 ND 34, ¶ 7, 905 N.W.2d 914. A court’s choice for primary residential responsibility between two fit parents is a difficult one, and this Court will not retry the case or substitute its judgment for that of the district court when its decision is supported by the evidence. Thompson v. Thompson , 2018 ND 21, ¶ 8, 905 N.W.2d 772. A court must award primary residential responsibility in light of the child’s best interests, considering all the relevant best interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.

  5. Rath v. Rath

    2018 N.D. 138 (N.D. 2018)   Cited 12 times

    [¶ 25] "The law presumes judges are unbiased, and adverse or erroneous rulings do not, by themselves, demonstrate bias." Schweitzer v. Mattingley , 2016 ND 231, ¶ 12, 887 N.W.2d 541. "When making a recusal decision, a ‘judge must determine whether a reasonable person could, on the basis of all the facts, reasonably question the judge’s impartiality.’ " Rath , 2016 ND 46, ¶ 31, 876 N.W.2d 474 (quoting Datz v.Dosch , 2014 ND 102, ¶ 16, 846 N.W.2d 724 ).

  6. Grasser v. Grasser

    2018 N.D. 85 (N.D. 2018)   Cited 13 times

    "Unlike a demand under N.D.C.C. § 29–15–21, a district court judge is not immediately divested of authority upon the filing of a motion to recuse." Schweitzer v. Mattingley , 2016 ND 231, ¶ 15, 887 N.W.2d 541. "While a judge has a duty to recuse when required by the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge also has an equally strong duty not to recuse when the facts do not require recusal." Id. at ¶ 13. A judge shall not permit relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. N.D. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2.4(B).

  7. Rath v. Rath

    2017 N.D. 138 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 11 times
    Stating any argument about how the child support guidelines should be amended would be better made to the Legislature or the Department of Human Services

    [¶ 25] Child support decisions involve questions of law subject to a de novo standard of review, findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and in some limited areas may be matters of discretion subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Schweitzer v. Mattingley , 2016 ND 231, ¶ 9, 887 N.W.2d 541.[¶ 26] Mark Rath requested his health insurance costs as an employee benefit not be included in calculating his gross and net income, citing N.D. Admin. Code § 75–02–04.1–01(4)(a)(2).

  8. Gagnon v. Gagnon

    2017 N.D. 67 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Law v. Whittet , 2015 ND 16, ¶ 4, 858 N.W.2d 636. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence supports it or after reviewing the entire record we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. Adams v. Adams , 2016 ND 169, ¶ 6, 883 N.W.2d 864. A court's award of primary residential responsibility must be made in light of the child's best interests, considering the relevant best interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14–09–06.2(1). Schweitzer v. Mattingley , 2016 ND 231, ¶ 22, 887 N.W.2d 541. [¶ 5] Factor (j) of the best interest factors governs domestic violence: