Legal Opinion · Dissent
Anderson v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided September 10, 1996No. Civil 960046Published
1DissentSandstrom, Justice
I join in the Chief Justice’s dissent, and write separately to highlight flawed analysis in the majority opinion.
The majority writes:
“The Bureau contends Anderson bears the burden of proving she is entitled to workers compensation benefits. However, a defense based on the statute of limitations in a civil proceeding is an affirmative defense. E.g., In Interest of K.B., 490 N.W.2d 715, 717 (N.D.1992). As McCarter v. Pomeroy, 466 N.W.2d 562, 566 (N.D.1991) (citing 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions § 294 (1987)), points out: ‘Generally, a party relying on a statute of limitations has the burden…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Little v. TracyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
- Dixon v. KaufmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
- In Re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, in Cass CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1971
- McCarter v. PomeroyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
- In Interest of KBNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.