Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mayo v. Mayo

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 2000No. 20000032Published

1DissentMaring, Justice

[¶ 42] I respectfully dissent. I am of the opinion that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were induced by an erroneous application of the law, and I am left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.

[¶ 43] The trial court concluded there was a substantial change in circumstances since the original custody order. After reaching that decision, the trial court concluded the change in circumstances required a change of physical custody from Banjac to Mayo in the best interests of the children. It is my opinion that although the trial court purports to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. HeitkampSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Blotske v. LeidholmNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Ludwig v. BurchillNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Myers v. MyersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Hendrickson v. HendricksonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999

4 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