Legal Opinion · Dissent

Steen and Berg Co. v. Berg

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 2006No. 20050155Published

1DissentCrothers, Justice

[¶ 20] I respectfully dissent because the non-claim statute does not apply to the stockholder’s agreement (“Agreement”). I would affirm the District Court’s conclusion on that issue but would remand for trial because of material issues of disputed fact regarding availability of the specific performance remedy and regarding the amount due under the Agreement.

[¶ 21] The estate argues the non-claim statute applies and that judicial decisions from other jurisdictions support the position. See Wunschel v. Ida Holding Co., Inc., 407 N.W.2d 341 (Iowa 1987); Estate of Penzenik v. Penz Prods., Inc.,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Van Grinsven v. G.R.H.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Public Service Commission v. Wimbledon Grain Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Van Klootwyk v. Baptist Home, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  4. In Re Estate of KimbrellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Phipps v. North Dakota Department of TransportationNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002

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