Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lauritsen v. Lammers

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1968No. 8471Published

1DissentStrutz, Judge

I must dissent from the opinion of the majority in this case. It reverses the district court and orders a new trial on the ground that an instruction given on the matter of the family-car doctrine was erroneous and prejudicial. I believe that when the entire instruction, as given, is read and construed, it is very apparent that the instruction as a whole was correct and proper. It must be remembered that error never will be presumed, but must be affirmatively shown by the record. The burden of showing error is on the party claiming it. Zarak v. Hjelle, 156 N.W.2d 815 (N.D.1968). The jury…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Larson v. MeyerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Froh v. HeinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Moe v. KettwigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Ferderer v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Bartholomay v. St. Thomas Lumber CompanyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API