Legal Opinion
American State Bank of Dickinson v. Stoltz
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided February 23, 1984No. Civ. 10511PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GIERKE, Justice.
Joe Stoltz appeals from an order of the district court finding him to be in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions during a hearing supplementary to execution. We affirm.
In August of 1981, Joe Stoltz and Gary Svihovec borrowed $55,000 from the American State Bank of Dickinson, and executed a promissory note to the Bank. On April 1, 1983, the Bank initiated an action against Stoltz and Svihovec for $27,955.19, the amount due and owing on the note, plus interest., Stoltz was served with a summons and complaint on April 7, 1983. Neither Stoltz nor Svihovec answered…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,322 Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., William H. HowtonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
- United States v. Ivan Melchor Moreno and Rigoberto Melchor MorenoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. ArnoldSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Investors Title Insurance Co. v. HerzigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
- Matrix Properties Corp. v. TAG INVESTMENTSNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- Mid-Dakota Clinic P.C. v. KolsrudNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. ZahnNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Bjorgen v. KinseyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.