Divorce

Gilbert v. Gilbert , 2007 ND 66, 730 N.W.2d 833
A custodial parent seeking to change the residence of a child to another state has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the move is in the child's best interest.
It is reversible error for a court to fail to give sufficient credence to the importance of keeping the custodial family intact when deciding whether to allow a custodial parent to relocate with the child to another state.
Wagner v. Wagner , 2007 ND 33, 728 N.W.2d 318
A spousal support determination will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.
Rehabilitative spousal support is awarded to equalize the burdens of divorce or to restore an economically disadvantaged spouse to independent status by providing the spouse with the opportunity to acquire an education, training, work skills, or experience to become self-supporting.
Glasser v. Glasser , 2006 ND 238, 724 N.W.2d 144
An order dismissing an order to show cause why a party should not be held in contempt of court is appealable.
Interpretation of a judgment is a question of law, and an unambiguous judgment may not be modified, enlarged, restricted, or diminished. The question whether a judgment is ambiguous is a question of law. There is an ambiguity when language can be reasonably construed as having at least two alternative meanings.
If the language used in a judgment is ambiguous, there is room for construction, but if the language is unambiguous and plain, neither construction nor interpretation is allowed, and the effect of the language must be based on the language's literal meaning.
Van Klootwyk v. Van Klootwyk , 1997 ND 88, 563 N.W.2d 377
In determining whether a spouse is disadvantaged and is entitled to spousal support, whether she is "self-supporting" is not the only determination.
Linrud v. Linrud , 552 N.W.2d 342 (N.D. 1996)
The trial court's assessment of child support for the time the divorce was pending was not clearly erroneous.
The trial court committed reversible error by not adequately explaining its reasoning for the substantial disparity in the property division.
The appellant failed to develop an adequate record showing waste of marital assets.
McComb v. Aboelessad, a/k/a Assad , 535 N.W.2d 744 (N.D. 1995)
Steckler v. Steckler , 519 N.W.2d 23 (N.D. 1994)
Martin v. Martin , 450 N.W.2d 768 (N.D. 1990)
Habberstad v. Habberstad , 444 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 1989)
McKenzie v. Jahnke , 432 N.W.2d 556 (N.D. 1988)
Powell v. Powell , 430 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1988)
Fleck v. Fleck , 427 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 1988)
Freyer v. Freyer , 427 N.W.2d 348 (N.D. 1988)
Opoien v. Opoien , 425 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 1988)
Schmitz v. Schmitz , 425 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 1988)
Sondrol v. Sondrol , 425 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 1988)
Kuchenski v. Kuchenski , 425 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 1988)
Cose v. Martens , 425 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 1988)
Wheeler v. Wheeler , 419 N.W.2d 923 (N.D. 1988)
Asplund v. Asplund , 422 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 1988)
Hartman v. Hartman , 417 N.W.2d 173 (N.D. 1987)
Baier v. Hampton , 417 N.W.2d 801 (N.D. 1987)
Pitsenbarger v. Pitsenbarger , 417 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 1987)
Dizayee v. Dizayee , 414 N.W.2d 606 (N.D. 1987)
Dick v. Dick , 414 N.W.2d 288 (N.D. 1987)
McIntee v. McIntee , 413 N.W.2d 366 (N.D. 1987)
Stoelting v. Stoelting , 412 N.W.2d 861 (N.D. 1987)
Branson v. Branson , 411 N.W.2d 395 (N.D. 1987)
Gronneberg v. Gronneberg , 412 N.W.2d 84 (N.D. 1987)
Hamilton v. Hamilton , 410 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1987)
Stiller v. Stiller , 413 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 1987)
Westgard v. Westgard , 408 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1987)
Russell v. Russell , 408 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1987)
Hanson v. Hanson , 404 N.W.2d 460 (N.D. 1987)
McRae v. Carbno , 404 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1987)
Fedora v. Fedora , 403 N.W.2d 10 (N.D. 1987)
Kuehl v. Lippert , 401 N.W.2d 523 (N.D. 1987)
Martian v. Martian , 399 N.W.2d 849 (N.D. 1987)
Keating v. Keating , 399 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 1987)
Belt v. Belt , 398 N.W.2d 737 (N.D. 1987)
Pitsenbarger v. Pitsenbarger , 398 N.W.2d 741 (N.D. 1986)
Weir v. Weir , 374 N.W.2d 858 (N.D. 1985)
Linn v. Linn , 370 N.W.2d 536 (N.D. 1985)
Heller v. Heller , 367 N.W.2d 179 (N.D. 1985)
McWethy v. McWethy , 366 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 1985)
Wilson v. Wilson , 364 N.W.2d 113 (N.D. 1985)
Shulze v. Shulze , 322 N.W.2d 250 (N.D. 1982)
Dossenko v. Dossenko , 294 N.W.2d 909 (N.D. 1980)
Johnson & Maxwell, Ltd. v. Lind , 288 N.W.2d 763 (N.D. 1980)
Gustafson v. Gustafson , 287 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1980)
Galloway v. Galloway , 281 N.W.2d 804 (N.D. 1979)
Bridgeford v. Bridgeford , 281 N.W.2d 583 (N.D. 1979)
Bettger v. Bettger , 280 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 1979)
Rummel v. Rummel , 265 N.W.2d 230 (N.D. 1978)
Anderson v. Anderson , 258 N.W.2d 146 (N.D. 1977)
Piper v. Piper , 239 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1975)
Piper v. Piper , 234 N.W.2d 621 (N.D. 1975)
Moll v. Moll , 231 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 1975)
Klaudt v. Klaudt , 156 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 1968)
Zundel v. Zundel , 146 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1966)
Zundel v. Zundel , 146 N.W.2d 896 (N.D. 1966)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/23/2008