State v. Gagnon

2012 ND 198
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 25, 2012
Docket20110311
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 2012 ND 198 (State v. Gagnon) 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. Gagnon, 2012 ND 198 (N.D. 2012).

Opinion

Filed 9/25/12 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2012 ND 196

The State of North Dakota, doing business as

The Bank of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Robert A. Brown, MDU Resources Group, Inc.,

d/b/a Montana-Dakota Utilities, and City of Halliday, Defendants

Robert A. Brown, Appellant

No. 20120145

Appeal from the District Court of Dunn County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Zane Anderson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Douglas B. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 500 North 9th Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4509, for plaintiff and appellee.

Robert A. Brown, self-represented, 118 2nd Street Northwest, Halliday, N.D. 58636, defendant and appellant; on brief.

Bank of North Dakota v. Brown

[¶1] Robert Brown appeals from a judgment granting the State, doing business as the Bank of North Dakota, foreclosure of its mortgage on property Brown owned.  Brown argues the district court erred by failing to require the Bank to produce the original mortgage documents and in granting summary judgment because the Bank engaged in misconduct by breaking into his house and changing the locks.  We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting copies of the mortgage documents and Brown failed to produce competent, admissible evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact.  We summarily affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), (6) and (7).   See Dakota Bank & Trust Co. of Bismarck v. Reed , 402 N.W.2d 887, 889 (N.D. 1987) (under N.D.R.Ev. 1003 copies of documents are admissible to the same extent as the originals unless a genuine question is raised about authenticity).

[¶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

State v. Mogren
2026 ND 2 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2026)
State v. Stands
2021 ND 135 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Lelm
2021 ND 118 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
City of Jamestown v. Casarez
2021 ND 71 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Casson
2019 ND 216 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2019)
State v. Schmidt
2016 ND 187 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. Kuruc
2014 ND 95 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)
State v. Hart
2014 ND 4 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)
State v. Canfield
2013 ND 236 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 ND 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gagnon-nd-2012.