State v. Chacano

2012 ND 113
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJune 7, 2012
Docket20110218
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 2012 ND 113 (State v. Chacano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Chacano, 2012 ND 113 (N.D. 2012).

Opinion

Filed 6/7/12 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2012 ND 106

Gary A. Hangsleben, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

Gail R. Halverson, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20110307

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Debbie Gordon Kleven, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Gary A. Hangsleben (on brief), self-represented, P.O. Box 14222, Grand Forks, ND 58208, plaintiff and appellant.

Donald H. Leonard (on brief), 308 DeMers Avenue NW, East Grand Forks, MN 56721-1816, for defendant and appellee.

Hangsleben v. Halverson

[¶1] Gary A. Hangsleben appeals a district court judgment dismissing his claims against his sister, Gail R. Halverson, and awarding Halverson costs and attorney’s fees.  The district court found Hangsleben’s nineteen allegations relating to the estates of his parents, Gust and Delores Hangsleben, and to the death of Delores Hangsleben were barred by res judicata because they were or should have been raised in two prior probate proceedings in Polk County, Minnesota, and a prior civil proceeding in Grand Forks County, North Dakota.   See Hangsleben v. Halverson , 2012 ND 42, 809 N.W.2d 833 (summarily affirming the dismissal of the North Dakota civil proceeding).  The district court found Hangsleben’s claims were frivolous and awarded Halverson costs and attorney’s fees.  Hangsleben argues the district court erred by (1) granting summary judgment because he raised genuine issues of material fact and (2) awarding costs and attorney’s fees because his claims were not frivolous.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (6).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meridian Property Management v. Cordie
2026 ND 52 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2026)
Black Elk v. State
2023 ND 150 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2023)
State v. Dunn
2023 ND 24 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2023)
Johnson v. Menard
2021 ND 19 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
Joyce v. Joyce
2020 ND 75 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Jessee
919 N.W.2d 335 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2018)
State v. Majetic
2017 ND 205 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2017)
Garaas v. Cass County Joint Water Resource District
2016 ND 148 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)
PHI Financial Services, Inc. v. Johnston Law Office, P.C.
2016 ND 114 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. Kopperud
2015 ND 124 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2015)
Hamilton v. Woll
2012 ND 238 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)
Hangsleben v. Halverson
2012 ND 106 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 ND 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chacano-nd-2012.