Court Opinion

ID: 9554047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:40:36.517571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:53.403488
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HUNT,
dissenting:
I dissent. It need hardly be said that summary judgment is inappropriate when a case presents disputed issues of material fact. In *237this case, the Hovens allege that they were forced to sign agreements in which they forewent legal rights and defenses under the threat of civil and criminal penalties. By granting summary judgment, the majority, and the District Court before it, concludes as a matter of law that the threat of civil and criminal penalties does not constitute economic duress. Under the circumstances alleged in this case, I cannot agree. The Hovens have raised material issues of fact which should be presented to a jury for its consideration. They should not be disposed of by the District Court on a motion for summary judgment.
Once again, the majority has approved the trend among the district courts in this state to sit as fact finders in motions for summary judgment, thereby denying plaintiffs their rightful day in court. What is the old saying? If I had a nickel for every dissent I’ve written protesting this trend....