Legal Opinion

Pearson v. State Unsatisfied Judgment Fund

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 1962No. 7971PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TEIGEN, Judge.

The title of the supplementary proceedings in the district court, resulting in this appeal, should have been entitled as in the main action; however, no issue has been raised thereon. The district court accepted jurisdiction and the proper parties were served and have appeared. The issue will not be raised by this court.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court vacating and setting aside its previous order for payment of the amount of a certain judgment from the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund. By this appeal the appellant seeks to have the order vacating and setting aside…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dixon v. GassertSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
  2. Holmberg v. AtenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
  3. Fasano v. GassertNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
  4. Minardi v. DupontNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
  5. Minardi v. NocitoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Tang v. PingNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Arizona Real Estate Department v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
  3. Richard v. JohnsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Tang v. PingNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API