Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sandvick v. LaCrosse

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 2008No. 20070146Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrothers, Justice

[¶ 24] I concur with Part II of the Majority Opinion affirming the district court’s findings and conclusion that the parties were not partners. I respectfully dissent from Parts III and IV where the Majority overlooks the district court’s findings of fact and, therefore, overtakes the district court’s fact-finding role.

[¶ 25] The hallmark of a joint venture is that parties pool financial resources and share control to accomplish a for-profit, limited-time event. See SPW Associates, LLP v. Anderson, 2006 ND 159, ¶ 10, 718 N.W.2d 580. This Court has recognized, *525“There is, however, no definite…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Klein v. LarsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  2. SPW ASSOCIATES, LLP v. AndersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API