Severance v. Howe
Citations
- 2023 ND 197
Syllabus
The tort of battery exists at common law. A person is civilly liable for offensive-contact battery if he or she (1) acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (2) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. North Dakota is a notice pleading state. North Dakota's rules do not require plaintiffs to allege every element of their claim. The formal character of a complaint does not strictly determine the cause of action. Whether to abrogate a common law claim is a policy matter for the Legislature to decide. Section 28-01-46, N.D.C.C, which requires plaintiffs to submit an affidavit containing an expert opinion to support a prima facie case of professional medical negligence, does not apply to a claim for the intentional tort of battery.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a surreply should be permitted where a new argument is advanced in a reply brief
- holding that a plaintiff can present evidence that her evaluation was deliberately falsified or manipulated to adversely alter her employment status
- concluding that plaintiffs had satisfied their prima facie burden by demonstrating that they were terminated while “at least one younger and/or nonminority employee was retained”
- holding that a district court “does not abuse its discretion by precluding a surreply” when deciding a motion “without relying on the new materials and arguments in the movant’s reply”
- concluding that when a district court is confronted with new arguments for dismissal in a reply brief it may permit nonmovant to file a surreply or refrain from relying on the material
- explaining that selective use of RIF criteria in identifying employees to be laid off is evidence of pretext
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Crothers, Daniel John
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.