Legal Opinion
Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Associates, Inc.
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided January 22, 2008No. 20070154PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CROTHERS, Justice.
[¶ 1] Earl and Harold Van Sickle appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their action against Hallmark & Assoc., Inc., Frank Celeste, William R. Austin, Phoenix Energy, Bobby Lankford, and Earskine Williams, collectively referred to as “Interest Holders”; NEWCO, and their successors in interest, Missouri Breaks, LLC, for breach of contract, conversion, and tortious interference. We conclude the district court made a legal error in concluding it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the Van Sickles are entitled to payment for pre-confirmation royalties. We affirm the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Bosiger v. US Airways, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
- Paul v. MontsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Franklin (In Re Franklin)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 1995
- Phyllis Jaskey Jones v. Chemetron CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Red River Wings, Inc. v. Hoot, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
- Sanders v. Gravel Products, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
- Missouri Breaks, LLC v. BurnsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
- Thimjon Farms Partnership v. First International Bank & TrustNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Trosen v. TrosenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.