Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Sheets v. Graco, Inc.
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided April 21, 1980No. Civ. No.. 9706Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSand, Justice
(special concurrence and dissent).
I concur in most of the principles of law stated in Chief Justice Erickstad’s opinion and the case law referred to, but I respectfully dissent from the rationale employed in reaching the conclusion and from the conclusion itself.
An action for wrongful death did not exist under common law and is purely a creature of statute. Harshman v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 14 N.D. 69, 103 N.W. 412 (1905). In this respect it is an action which meets the provisions of subsection (2) of § 28-01-16, NDCC, as an action resting upon liability created by statute.
Section…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Adams v. Little Missouri Minerals AssociationNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
- Frieda Klingebiel and Henry Klingebiel v. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1953
- Umphrey Ex Rel. Umphrey v. DeeryNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1951
- Sprecher Ex Rel. Liedtke v. MagstadtNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.