Anderson v. Jenkins
North Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Blotske v. LeidholmNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
- Kelly v. KellyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- Alvarez v. CarlsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
- Tank v. TankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Ehli v. JoyceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.