Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. Jenkins

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 2013No. 20130078Published

1DissentMaring, Justice

[¶ 21] I, respectfully, dissent. I am of the opinion the majority misapplies the law, and Jenkins did not establish a prima facie case justifying a modification of primary residential responsibility and an evi-dentiary hearing.

[¶ 22] A prima facie case cannot be established by a moving party through allegations alone. Charvat v. Charvat, 2013 ND 145, ¶ 20, 835 N.W.2d 846 (Maring, J., concurring in the result); Jensen v. Jensen, 2013 ND 144, ¶ 23, 835 N.W.2d 819 (Maring, J., dissenting); Thompson v. Thompson, 2012 ND 15, ¶ 6, 809 N.W.2d 331; see also Ehli v. Joyce, 2010 ND 199, ¶ 7, 789 N.W.2d…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Blotske v. LeidholmNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Kelly v. KellyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Alvarez v. CarlsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Tank v. TankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Ehli v. JoyceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010

6 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