Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Swenson v. Raumin
Citations: 520 N.W.2d 858; 1994 N.D. LEXIS 174; 1994 WL 459169Docket: Civ. 940036
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court; August 24, 1994; North Dakota; State Supreme Court
The case involves Peter Swenson and Sally Swenson as plaintiffs appealing against Jerry Raumin and Roger Raumin, operating as Raumin Brothers, following Peter’s injury while working at their potato warehouse. Peter allegedly fell while closing a bin door and subsequently signed a release form after receiving a $2,400 settlement offer, believing it only covered his immediate lost wages. His medical expenses have since exceeded $30,000. Peter seeks rescission of the release, claiming his lack of education contributed to his misunderstanding. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding Peter did not meet the necessary conditions for rescission. The court also issued a Rule 54(b) certification for immediate appeal, which was questioned by the Supreme Court of North Dakota. The court emphasized that Rule 54(b) should not be used routinely and requires extraordinary circumstances to justify an immediate appeal. The certification was deemed improvidently granted, as no compelling reasons or potential hardships were presented that would necessitate early review. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with a dissenting opinion suggesting that merits of the appeal should have been considered.