Ranta v. McCarney
North Dakota Supreme Court
391 N.W.2d 161 (1986)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
Robert P. McCartney (defendant) hired Esko E. Ranta (plaintiff), a tax attorney licensed to practice law in Minnesota, in connection with the sale of McCartney’s business in North Dakota. After Ranta rendered services and billed McCartney, McCartney paid only a portion of the bill. Ranta sued McCartney to recover attorney’s fees. At the end of the trial, McCartney sought to amend the complaint to argue that because Ranta was never licensed to practice law in North Dakota, Ranta could not recover fees. Although the trial court granted McCartney’s motion, the court rejected McCartney’s argument, holding that North Dakota law did not prohibit Ranta from collecting fees. Further, the court stated that the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluded McCartney from arguing that Ranta could not recover fees because McCartney had already received the services from Ranta. McCartney appealed the trial court’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vande Walle, J.)
Dissent (Levine, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
