Matter of Estate of Sorensen
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Estate of Stuckle (N.D. 1988)
- Matter of Estate of Starcher (N.D. 1989)
- Estate of Kish (N.D. 2024)
- State v. Swearingen (N.D. 2012)
- Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth (N.D. 2012)
- Investors Title Insurance Co. v. Herzig (N.D. 2010)
- Matter of Estate of Stensland (N.D. 1998)
- Matter of Estate of Rohrich (N.D. 1993)
- Rohrich v. Noziska (N.D. 1993)
- Ceartin v. Ochs (N.D. 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is a consolidated appeal from orders denying the claims of Greg Baehm, Todd Baehm, Charles Baehm and Roland Baehm, Jr., against the Estate of Soren Sorensen in a supervised probate proceeding. Because the requirements of Rule 54(b), North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, have not been met, we dismiss the appeal.
Under North Dakota Century Code § 30.1-02-06.1 [U.P.C. 1-308], the right to appellate review of probate orders is governed by the rules applicable to appeals to the Supreme Court in equity cases from the district court. Section 28-27-02, NDCC, specifies which orders are appeal-able to this Court. Once jurisdiction is established under § 28-27-02, NDCC, Rule 54(b)’s separate requirements must also be met, if applicable. Gillan v. Saffell, 395 N.W.2d 148, 149 (N.D. 1986). Parties in probate cases bear the duty of requesting a Rule 54(b) order or certification if they seek an appeal. First Trust Co. of North Dakota v. Conway, 345 N.W.2d 838, 842 (N.D. 1984). We find no Rule 54(b) certification in the record as required and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.