Mayo v. Mayo
North Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. HeitkampSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Blotske v. LeidholmNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
- Ludwig v. BurchillNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
- Myers v. MyersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- Hendrickson v. HendricksonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.