Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rittenour v. Gibson

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 2003No. 20020053Published

1DissentMaring, Justice

[¶ 45] I respectfully dissent. I am of the opinion the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gibson’s motion for a new trial.

[¶ 46] On July 13, 2000, the trial court ordered that jury instructions were to be submitted by November 3, 2000. Rule 51, N.D.R.Civ.P., provides that the trial court “may require each instruction to be written on a separate sheet, provided North Dakota pattern jury instructions may be requested by reference to instruction number only.” In a belated response to the trial court’s order that written instructions be filed with the court, Gibson filed on…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Peterson v. BalachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  2. State v. OlanderNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Conover v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  4. Okken v. OkkenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Flom v. FlomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

18 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