Legal Opinion

Fredericks v. Fredericks

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 2016No. 20150359PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sandstrom, Justice.

[¶1] Lyndon Fredericks appeals, and Bole Resources, LLC, and others (“Bole defendants”) cross-appeal from a judgment declaring the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, reforming a quit claim mineral deed, quieting title in the mineral interests in Paul Freder-icks, and ordering Lyndon Fredericks to pay the Bole defendants damages plus interest and their attorney fees. Because we conclude the district court correctly ruled it had subject-matter jurisdiction, its findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and it. did not abuse its discretion, we…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Williams v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian NationSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Estate of FroemkeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2023
  2. Gustafson v. PoitraNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Motter v. Traill Rural Water DistrictNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Northwest Grading, Inc. v. North Star Water, LLCNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Hoff v. City of BurlingtonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2025

7 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