Lithun v. DuPaul
525 N.W.2d 252, 1994 N.D. LEXIS 274, 1994 WL 722112
Opinion
Michael DuPauI appeals from a judgment severely restricting his visitation. He alleges that the court violated his constitutional rights by the restrictions it imposed. Given the facts, however, authority does not support his claims. Dschaak v. Dschaak, 479 N.W.2d 484 (N.D.1992); Lithun v. DuPaul, 449 N.W.2d 810 (N.D.1989); Lithun v. DuPaul, 447 N.W.2d 297 (N.D.1989); C.B.D. v. W.E.B., 298 N.W.2d 493 (N.D.1980). We summarily affirm the district court’s ruling pursuant to NDRAppP 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lithun v. DuPaul, 525 N.W.2d 252, 1994 N.D. LEXIS 274, 1994 WL 722112 (N.D. 1994).
525 N.W.2d 252 (Lithun v. DuPaul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Dschaak v. Dschaak
479 N.W.2d 484 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1992)
Lithun v. DuPaul
447 N.W.2d 297 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1989)
Lithun v. DuPaul
449 N.W.2d 810 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1989)
C.B.D. v. W.E.B.
298 N.W.2d 493 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1980)