Other (Civil)

Hutchinson v. Boyle , 2008 ND 150, 753 N.W.2d 881
Disorderly conduct does not include constitutionally protected activity.
A district court must address a respondent's constitutional claims before issuing a disorderly conduct restraining order.
Strand v. Cass County , 2008 ND 149, 753 N.W.2d 872
When a party requests attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. 28-26-01(2), the court must first determine whether a claim is frivolous. If it determines the claim is frivolous, the court must then award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
Under N.D.C.C. 28-26-31, a court is authorized to award attorney's fees for allegations and denials in any pleadings in court, made without reasonable cause and not in good faith, and found to be untrue.
Under Rule 11, N.D.R.Civ.P., a district court may award sanctions against an attorney or a represented party, or both, if they violate the rule's requirements.
State v. $33,000 U.S. Currency , 2008 ND 96, 748 N.W.2d 420
A district court's denial of a motion for relief from a default judgment will be reversed if the court abused its discretion.
A district court should be more lenient when entertaining motions to vacate default judgments as distinguished from judgments entered after a trial on the merits.
Whether an appearance has been made for purposes of N.D.R.Civ. P. 55(a) is a question of law.
An appearance is any response sufficient to give the plaintiff or his or her attorney notice of an intent to contest the claim.
City of Minot v. Boger , 2008 ND 7, 744 N.W.2d 277
The due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions are not violated under the void-for-vagueness doctrine if the challenged language, when measured by common understanding and practice, gives adequate warning of the conduct proscribed and marks boundaries sufficiently distinct for fair administration of the law.
A local government has a substantial interest in aesthetics and has the right to maintain its aesthetics through zoning regulations.
State v. $3719 U.S. Currency , 2007 ND 188, 742 N.W.2d 839
Order granting forfeiture of $3,719 is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. $2996.00 U.S. Currency , 2007 ND 171, 742 N.W.2d 839
Order granting forfeiture of $2996.00 is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
Olsrud v. Bismarck-Mandan Orchestral Association , 2007 ND 91, 733 N.W.2d 256
N.D.R.Civ.P. 5 applies to pleadings after the original complaint is served and the court acquires personal jurisdiction over the defendant, while N.D.R.Civ.P. 4 applies to a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant and how service of process may be made.
A plaintiff has the burden of establishing that authority to receive service of process exists between a defendant and the individual served.
A party waives an argument by not providing supporting argument, and without supporting reasoning or citation to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit.
Holbach v. Dixon , 2007 ND 60, 730 N.W.2d 613
A petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order must allege specific facts or threats that adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person.
To comport with due process requirements in a disorderly conduct restraining order proceeding, a court can limit the petitioner's argument to the dates alleged and the facts contained in the petition.
Odden v. Rath , 2007 ND 51, 730 N.W.2d 590
To obtain an extension of a protection order, the petitioner need not make a second showing of actual or imminent domestic violence. However, the petitioner must meet the threshold burden of showing actual or imminent domestic violence at some point prior to obtaining the extension.
Although the district court should not extend a protection order based solely on the history between the parties, it remains a relevant factor to consider when determining whether an extension is warranted.
A petitioner's fear alone, with no other supporting facts, is not enough to justify the extension of a protection order.
State v. Altru Health Systems , 2007 ND 38, 729 N.W.2d 113
The district court's inquiry in proceedings for enforcing an administrative subpoena is limited to whether: (1) the subpoena is within the statutory authority of the agency; (2) the information sought is reasonably relevant to the inquiry of the administrative proceeding; (3) the subpoena is reasonably specific; and (4) the subpoena is not unduly broad or burdensome.
A court's decision to issue a protective order imposing restrictions on an administrative subpoena is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

Gonzales v. Witzke , 2007 ND 34, 729 N.W.2d 334
A disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).
Hentz v. Elma Township Board , 2007 ND 19, 727 N.W.2d 276
A township board's decision must be affirmed unless the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or there is not substantial evidence supporting the decision.
Interpretation of an ordinance is fully reviewable on appeal, and failure to correctly interpret and apply the ordinances constitutes arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable conduct.
Ordinances are interpreted like any statute.
Meier v. Said , 2007 ND 18, 726 N.W.2d 852
A petitioner seeking a disorderly conduct restraining order may not raise new allegations through hearing testimony without notice to the respondent.
A petitioner is not required to bolster testimony by presenting corroborating evidence, such as eyewitnesses or official reports, although such corroborating evidence may be useful to the district court.
Allard v. Johnson , 2006 ND 243, 724 N.W.2d 331
Whether a presumption applies is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal.
A durable power of attorney agreement creates a confidential relationship and fiduciary duties owed to the beneficiary by the attorney-in-fact.
Under a durable power of attorney agreement, the attorney-in-fact must act with the highest good faith toward the beneficiary and may not obtain any advantage over the beneficiary.
All transactions between an attorney-in-fact and a beneficiary by which the attorney-in-fact obtains any advantage is presumed to be entered into without sufficient consideration and under undue influence.
Riemers v. City of Grand Forks , 2006 ND 224, 723 N.W.2d 518
A party opposing summary judgment may not merely rely upon the pleadings or unsupported, conclusory allegations.
A party waives an issue by not providing supporting arguments, reasoning, or citations to relevant legal authority.
An Attorney General's opinion is "highly persuasive" if it is consistent with the district court's independent analysis of the issues presented.
Under the open records law, a public entity need not disclose a record that is not in its possession or custody at the time of the request.
The "criminal intelligence and investigative information exception," which exempts active criminal investigation material from disclosure under the open records law, is temporary in nature and terminates upon the completion of the criminal prosecution.
Frisk v. Frisk , 2006 ND 165, 719 N.W.2d 332
A domestic violence protection order may be extended upon request made prior to the order's expiration.
After a case has been remanded, the district court must cure any defects, but may do so in any manner consistent with the appellate court's opinion and conformable to law and justice.
State ex rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc. , 2006 ND 84, 712 N.W.2d 828
Preemption of state law is not favored, and the framework for analyzing a preemption claim under the Supremacy Clause begins with the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law.
A state's police power encompasses the duty to protect the privacy of its citizens, including the authority to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the home and the well-being and tranquility of the community.
The statutory language of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 clearly expresses Congress' intent that the Act was not meant to occupy the field within its subject matter.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act does not preempt a state law which prohibits telemarketing calls using automatic telephone dialing systems or artificial or prerecorded voice messages.
Thomas v. Stone , 2006 ND 59, 711 N.W.2d 199
An insured's authority to designate beneficiaries in a life insurance policy may be limited by an agreement or judgment.
State v. Bergstrom , 2006 ND 45, 710 N.W.2d 407
In a civil forfeiture action, the State must show probable cause exists to bring the forfeiture action, and then the claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the property is not subject to forfeiture.
Because forfeiture is a civil proceeding, apart from an underlying criminal proceeding, the burden of each party does not change when the defendant is acquitted of the criminal charge.
A district court may not rely on a prior probable cause determination, made when a search warrant was issued, to conclude there was probable cause to bring a civil forfeiture action.
Findings of fact are adequate if they provide this Court with an understanding of the district court's factual basis used in reaching its determination.
A court must balance four factors when deciding if a delay in bringing a forfeiture action has violated the claimant's due process rights: length of delay, the reason for the delay, the claimant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the claimant.
Ficklin v. Ficklin , 2006 ND 40, 710 N.W.2d 387
Before a court may enter a protection order, there must be a showing of actual or imminent domestic violence.
Past abusive behavior is a relevant factor to consider in determining whether domestic violence is actual or imminent.
Where a person might live after the issuance of a domestic violence protection order is not relevant to the issuance of a domestic violence protection order.
The use of a standardized form does not excuse a court's duty to make findings that support the issuance of the order and allow for an intelligible review of a case on appeal.
Wheeler v. Gardner , 2006 ND 24, 708 N.W.2d 908
An inmate's responsibility for costs of a medical visit is not limited to a maximum of $10, but rather an inmate is responsible for the actual health care costs plus an additional $10 fee for each medical visit requested by the inmate.
An "after hours" fee billed by a dental office is a health care cost for which an inmate is liable.
Wetzel v. Schlenvogt , 2005 ND 190, 705 N.W.2d 836
A corporation may not be represented by a non-attorney agent in a legal proceeding.
When a case is commenced on behalf of a corporation by a non-attorney agent, the case and all documents signed by the non-attorney agent are void from the beginning.
Reasonable grounds exist for obtaining a disorderly conduct restraining order when the facts and circumstances presented to the judge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that acts constituting disorderly conduct have been committed.
A disorderly conduct restraining order does not require a pattern of behavior.
The district court does not abuse its discretion in granting a disorderly conduct restraining order when there is sufficient, admissible evidence that disorderly conduct has been committed, whether that evidence is received on direct examination or cross-examination.
Whenever there is a discrepancy between a trial court's oral and written statements, the written statement controls.
Frisk v. Frisk , 2005 ND 154, 703 N.W.2d 341
A domestic violence protection order, originally entered under a stipulation or agreement specifically declining to issue findings regarding domestic violence, cannot be extended absent a threshold finding of actual or imminent domestic violence.
GO Committee v. City of Minot , 2005 ND 136, 701 N.W.2d 865
The judiciary's role in reviewing a municipality's interpretation and application of a municipal ordinance is limited by the doctrine of separation of powers to determining whether the municipality clearly abused its discretion.
Ordinances are interpreted like statutes.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to full review upon appeal.
Gosbee v. Martinson , 2005 ND App 10, 701 N.W.2d 411
Rule 54(e)(1), N.D.R.Civ.P., which provides that the trial court shall schedule a hearing when objections to costs and disbursements are filed, is mandatory and affords no discretion to the trial court to dispense with the required hearing unless it is expressly waived by the parties.
When a motion is submitted under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 and oral argument is properly requested, the trial court has no discretion to refuse to hold a hearing.
When a trial court has erroneously failed to provide a required hearing, the appropriate remedy is a remand for a hearing.
Cusey v. Nagel , 2005 ND 84, 695 N.W.2d 697
A person who petitions for a disorderly conduct restraining order must allege specific facts or threats.
Eberts v. Billings Co. Board of Commissioners , 2005 ND 85, 695 N.W.2d 691
A board of county commissioners may condemn land for a road under quick take procedures in N.D.C.C. 24-05-09 through 24-05-15.
Azure v. Belcourt Public School Dist. , 2004 ND 128, 681 N.W.2d 816
In a negligence case, duty is a question of whether a relationship between the parties gives rise to any legal obligation; whether a duty exists is a question of law.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record indicates the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff in a negligence action.
Baker v. Mayer , 2004 ND 105, 680 N.W.2d 261
A trial court's decision to grant a disorderly conduct restraining order will not be reversed unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
"Reasonable grounds" for a disorderly conduct restraining order is synonymous with "probable cause."
An alleged victim of disorderly conduct must show more than that the person's actions are unwanted; the alleged victim must show that the actions were intended to adversely affect the alleged victim's safety, privacy, or security.
Karsky v. Kirby , 2004 ND 110, 680 N.W.2d 257
When a stipulation is incorporated into a judgment, the court is concerned only with interpretation and enforcement of the judgment, not with the underlying contract.
The right to a hearing from the Banking Board's denial of an application for transfer of the ownership of a banking institution can be waived by the parties.
When a judgment is clarified by the same trial judge who entered it, the clarification is entitled to considerable deference.
Gullickson v. Kline , 2004 ND 76, 678 N.W.2d 138
Only a person who has been the victim of disorderly conduct, or the parent or guardian of a minor who has been a victim, may seek a disorderly conduct restraining order.
Procedural due process requires fundamental fairness, which, at a minimum, necessitates notice and a meaningful opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.
Riemers v. O'Halloran , 2004 ND 79, 678 N.W.2d 547
A party waives an issue by not providing supporting argument, and without supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit.
Court-appointed expert witnesses are absolutely immune from suit on the basis of their testimony.
An appeal is frivolous if it is flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, or demonstrates persistence in the course of litigation which could be seen as evidence of bad faith.
Jundt v. Jurassic Resources , 2004 ND 65, 677 N.W.2d 209
What could have been presented in a prior appeal may not be heard on a later appeal.
A N.D.R.Civ.P. 68 settlement offer must present a clear baseline from which plaintiffs may evaluate the merits of their case relative to the value of the offer.
To trigger the mandatory cost-shifting provision, a defendant seeking costs under N.D.R.Civ.P. 68 must show that the offer was more favorable than the judgment.
Saefke v. Stenehjem , 2003 ND 202, 673 N.W.2d 41
An action by a private party against the attorney general to challenge the correctness of an attorney general's opinion does not present a justiciable controversy.
A petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel a state's attorney to institute proceedings because the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available under N.D.C.C. 11-16-06.
An order refusing to appoint a private attorney to initiate proceedings under N.D.C.C. 11-16-06 is not appealable.
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction to issue a supervisory writ is discretionary.
State v. $17,515.00 in Cash Money , 2003 ND 168, 670 N.W.2d 826
There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a drug-related forfeiture proceeding.
In a contested drug-related forfeiture proceeding, the State must first show probable cause to believe the property is forfeitable, and then the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is not forfeitable.
Matter of Garrison State Bank and Trust , 2003 ND 84, 662 N.W.2d 267
If the party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party may not rely on mere allegations, but must present competent evidence by affidavit or other comparable means creating a material factual dispute.
Ramey v. Twin Butte School Dist. , 2003 ND 87, 662 N.W.2d 270
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination for failure-to-hire under the North Dakota Human Rights Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is a member of a protected class under the Human Rights Act; (2) she sought and was qualified for the position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment decision; and (4) others not in the protected class were treated more favorably.
Weninger v. Grzeskowiak , 2003 ND 80, 664 N.W.2d 516
Disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Jundt v. Jurassic Resources , 2003 ND 9, 656 N.W.2d 15
A trial court abuses its discretion only when it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner, when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision, or when it misinterprets or misapplies the law.
A governor of a limited liability company must discharge his or her duties in good faith.
All members in a closely held limited liability company owe one another a duty to act in an honest, fair, and reasonable manner in the operation of the limited liability company.
State v. Gratech Co. , 2003 ND 7, 655 N.W.2d 417
Absent a specific statutory or contractual exclusion, arbitrators have jurisdiction to determine whether a party has complied with procedural conditions precedent to arbitration.
State v. Guthmiller , 2002 ND 156, 655 N.W.2d 84
The trial court's forfeiture order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
Grad v. Jepson , 2002 ND 153, 652 N.W.2d 324
The standard of review for a minor child's name change petition is abuse of discretion.
"Proper and reasonable cause" includes consideration of the best interests of the child in the context of a petition to change a minor child's name.
Grey Bear v. ND Dept. of Human Services , 2002 ND 139, 651 N.W.2d 611
The statutory assignment granted to the Department of Human Services from a recipient of Medicaid benefits is for any third-party recovery a recipient may have for an injury, but is limited to the amount of medical costs provided by the Department for that injury.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to delete an amendment to a judgment that was originally requested by the party seeking to delete the amendment.
A trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over a party when the party was neither served with a summons, nor made a voluntary general appearance.
Lithun v. DuPaul , 2002 ND 120, 651 N.W.2d 692
Disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Larson v. McMorrow , 2002 ND 108, 651 N.W.2d 692
The district court's issuance of a domestic violence protection order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
Skadberg v. Skadberg , 2002 ND 97, 644 N.W.2d 873
To support a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order, the petitioner must present evidence of specific acts or threats constituting disorderly conduct.
A full hearing on a disorderly conduct restraining order authorizes a district court to hear the evidence on affidavits and cross-examination.
Wolfe v. Wolfe , 2002 ND 58, 647 N.W.2d 706
Permanent disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Peters-Riemers v. Riemers , 2002 ND 49, 641 N.W.2d 83
An eviction action may be brought to enforce the terms of a divorce judgment.
Issues not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.
Gaab v. Ochsner , 2001 ND 195, 636 N.W.2d 669
A party is not required to prove actual or imminent domestic violence in order to obtain an extension of an existing protection order.
Dvorak v. Dvorak , 2001 ND 178, 635 N.W.2d 135
Trial courts may decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on a motion for reconsideration when those arguments could have been raised in earlier proceedings.
The purpose of N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iii) is not to correct outcomes that may be factually incorrect, but rather to protect against a party prevailing by unfair means.
Flattum-Riemers v. Peters-Riemers , 2001 ND 121, 630 N.W.2d 71
A request for district court review of a judicial referee's findings and order need not specifically recite every issue raised before the referee to preserve those issues for appellate review.
A trial court may allow the filing of affidavits and documents less than 24 hours before a hearing.
Denial of a continuance because of the absence of a material witness is proper when the moving party does not show what the witness would testify to if present, or that the facts desired cannot be proven by other available witnesses, and when there is no showing of diligence to secure the testimony of the witness by deposition or personal appearance at trial.
Midwestern Enterprises, Inc. v. Stenehjem , 2001 ND 67, 625 N.W.2d 234
"Gambling apparatus" means any device, machine, paraphernalia, or equipment that is used or usable in the playing phases of any gambling activity, whether that activity consists of gambling between persons, or gambling by a person involving the playing of a machine.
"Coin-operated gaming device" means any machine that is a so-called "slot" machine that operates by means of the insertion of a coin, token, or similar object and which, by application of the element of chance, may deliver, or entitle the person playing or operating the machine to receive cash, premiums, merchandise, or tokens.
Peters-Riemers v. Riemers , 2001 ND 62, 624 N.W.2d 83
Error may not be predicated upon the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.
Only a willful violation of a protection order results in penalty.
An issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.
Harn v. County of McKenzie , 2000 ND 173, 622 N.W.2d 432
A summary judgment for costs and disbursements and an order denying a motion for new trial in action for conversion and violation of public duty are affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), (6).
Buchholz v. City of Oriska , 2000 ND 115, 611 N.W.2d 886
Under N.D.C.C. 40-05-01(1), when a municipality wishes to enact an ordinance adopting a standard code by reference, it must file a copy of that code in the office of the city auditor for public use and examination. The statute does not apply to self-contained ordinances which do not adopt existing codes by reference.
Hamers v. Guttormson, f/k/a Hamers , 2000 ND 93, 610 N.W.2d 758
Parents have a paramount and constitutional right to the custody and companionship of their children, superior to that of any other person.
The court cannot award custody of a minor to a third party, rather than to the child's natural parent, unless there are exceptional circumstances which require, in the child's best interests to prevent serious harm or detriment to the child, that the child be placed in the custody of a third party.
Tibor v. Lund , 1999 ND 176, 599 N.W.2d 301
To support a request for a disorderly conduct restraining order, the petitioner must present evidence of specific acts which were intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person.
Ennis v. City of Ray , 1999 ND 104, 595 N.W.2d 305
A city is authorized to provide mandatory garbage collection services and collect fees for such services.
A city's collection of mandatory garbage fees from property owners who refuse the service and dispose of their own garbage does not violate their due process rights.
Vass v. Sissell , 1999 ND 71, 598 N.W.2d 860
Order granting petition for disorderly conduct restraining order summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
KAT Video Productions v. KKCT-FM Radio a/k/a Kat Country , 1998 ND 177, 584 N.W.2d 844
To prevail in infringement actions, plaintiffs must prove defendants' use of name and logo creates a likelihood of confusion.
The trial court may limit the use of a common English word where it will cause a likelihood of confusion with a protected name.
Eggl v. Fleetguard, Inc. , 1998 ND 166, 583 N.W.2d 812
There is no time limit for attacking a void judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iv).
Mail service upon a foreign corporation under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(3)(C) must be addressed to an officer, director, or other responsible person in management.
A corporation whose only contact with North Dakota was shipping products into the state for resale by independent retailers was not "transacting business" in the state for purposes of N.D.C.C. 10-22-10.
Petition for Change of Designation of Judgeship No. 8 , 1998 ND 136, 582 N.W.2d 1
Petition for change of designation of chambers from Linton to Mandan denied.
1st Summit Bank, f/k/a Summit Bank v. Samuelson , 1998 ND 113, 580 N.W.2d 132
On this record, foreign state's confessed judgment did not deny due process to debtor even though foreign state's procedure does not require signature of debtor under oath.
North Dakota is required to give full faith and credit to another state's money judgment which is properly filed and authenticated in North Dakota, regardless of our own policy or law.
Smith v. Burleigh Co. Bd. of Commissioners , 1998 ND 105, 578 N.W.2d 533
For a court to have subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal, the appellant must meet the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal.
An applicant for a writ of mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to the performance of an act and must have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Judicial review of a decision by a nonjudicial governing body is limited to determining if the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Judicial Vacancy in the South Central Judicial District , 1998 ND 98, 577 N.W.2d 328
District Judgeship No. 5 retained.
Judicial Vacancy in South Central Judicial District , 1998 ND 58, 574 N.W.2d 593
Judicial Vacancy in Southeast Judicial District , 1998 ND 25, 574 N.W.2d 199
District Judgeship No. 1 in the Chamber at Jamestown ordered abolished.
Sposato v. Sposato , 1997 ND 207, 570 N.W.2d 212
Appeal from an order granting grandparent visitation in New York, the time period for which has expired, is dismissed as moot.
Absent a current request for visitation, the issue is not ripe for review.
KAT Video Productions v. KKCT-FM Radio , 1997 ND 21, 560 N.W.2d 203
In determining whether there was trademark or tradename infringement, the district court inappropriately granted summary judgment. Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the designations was a disputed question of fact on the evidence presented to the district court.
Peterson v. Peterson , 1997 ND 14, 559 N.W.2d 826
The trial court's continuation and expansion of grandparent visitation was clearly erroneous because additional visitation was not requested by the grandparents and because substantial visits were ordered over both parents' objections and clearly interfered with their parental choices. The trial court must cautiously impose grandparent visitations under NDCC 14-09-05.1, taking into consideration the parents' constitutional right to raise their child reasonably.
Grinaker v. Grinaker , 553 N.W.2d 200 (N.D. 1996)
The trial court did not err in concluding that a shareholder's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, and unfairly prejudicial and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver to preserve the assets of the corporation during the shareholder's divorce.
Richmond v. Nodland , 552 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 1996)
Defamatory statements voluntarily made to law enforcement officers during investigation of criminal activity are qualifiedly privileged.
State v. Ertelt , 548 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Spotted Horse , 551 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Falcon , 546 N.W.2d 835 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Holecek , 545 N.W.2d 800 (N.D. 1996)
Stibbe v. Stibbe , 551 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 1996)
Cave v. Wetzel , 545 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Zurmiller , 544 N.W.2d 139 (N.D. 1996)
Lapp v. Reeder Public School Dist. No. 3 , 544 N.W.2d 164 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Ensminger , 542 N.W.2d 722 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Sundquist , 542 N.W.2d 90 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Bengson , 541 N.W.2d 702 (N.D. 1996)
Magrinat v. Trinity Hospital , 540 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1995)
Re Annexation of Unity Public School Dist. , 540 N.W.2d 393 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Schindele , 540 N.W.2d 139 (N.D. 1995)
State v. McDonell , 544 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1995)
State of North Dakota ex rel. v. Vogel , 537 N.W.2d 358 (N.D. 1995)
Williams v. Spilovoy , 536 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Key , 532 N.W.2d 366 (N.D. 1995)
State v. His Chase , 531 N.W.2d 271 (N.D. 1995)
Medical Arts Clinic v. Franciscan Initiatives v. Hoberg , 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1995)
Hodek v. Greater Nelson County Consortium , 531 N.W.2d 280 (N.D. 1995)
Interest of N.W. , 531 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 1995)
Adams County Record v. Greater North Dakota Association , 529 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 1995)
City of Fargo v. Ness , 529 N.W.2d 572 (N.D. 1995)
Heck v. Reed , 529 N.W.2d 155 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Zimmerman , 529 N.W.2d 171 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Azure , 525 N.W.2d 654 (N.D. 1994)
Svedberg v. Stamness , 525 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1994)
Hochhalter v. Dakota Race Management , 524 N.W.2d 582 (N.D. 1994)
Sandbeck v. Rockwell , 524 N.W.2d 846 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Franklin , 524 N.W.2d 603 (N.D. 1994)
Kemp v. City of Grand Forks , 523 N.W.2d 406 (N.D. 1994)
State v. One 1990 Chevrolet Pickup , 523 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 1994)
State v. One Black 1989 Cadillac , 522 N.W.2d 457 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Gunwall , 522 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 1994)
Bolinske v. ND State Fair Association , 522 N.W.2d 426 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Azure , 520 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1994)
Hodek v. Greater Nelson Co. Consortium , 520 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Whalen , 520 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 1994)
Stewart v. Ryan , 520 N.W.2d 39 (N.D. 1994)
Westerso v. Rustad , 517 N.W.2d 404 (N.D. 1994)
Jensen v. Zuern , 517 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 1994)
Van Beek v. Friese Manufacturing, Inc. , 520 N.W.2d 60 (N.D. 1994)
Gosbee v. Bendish , 512 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1994)
Pilloff v. The State of ND Human Services , 516 N.W.2d 300 (N.D. 1994)
Interest of N.W. , 510 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1994)
Ennis v. Dasovick , 506 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1993)
Fargo Women's Health Organization v. Lambs of Christ , 502 N.W.2d 536 (N.D. 1993)
Sargent County Bank v. Wentworth , 500 N.W.2d 862 (N.D. 1993)
Slaubaugh v. Slaubaugh , 499 N.W.2d 99 (N.D. 1993)
Interest of P.C. , 503 N.W.2d 849 (N.D. 1993)
Syverson, Rath and Mehrer, P.C. v. ND State Auditor , 495 N.W.2d 79 (N.D. 1993)
Conservatorship of Kinney , 495 N.W.2d 69 (N.D. 1993)
American Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Speros , 494 N.W.2d 599 (N.D. 1993)
Ennis v. Williams County Board of Commissioners , 493 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 1992)
Carlson v. Farmers Insurance Group , 492 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 1992)
MacDonald v. ND Commission on Medical Competency , 492 N.W.2d 94 (N.D. 1992)
Mees v. Ereth , 492 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 1992)
Homer Township v. Zimney , 490 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of K. B. , 490 N.W.2d 715 (N.D. 1992)
Municipal Services Corp. v. Kusler, as Secretary of State , 490 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1992)
Fargo Women's Health Organization v. Lambs of Christ , 488 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 1992)
First Security Bank of Underwood v. Friese Manufacturing, Inc. , 489 N.W.2d 342 (N.D. 1992)
Ennis v. Schuetzle , 488 N.W.2d 867 (N.D. 1992)
Throndset v. L.L.S. , 485 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1992)
Houle v. State , 482 N.W.2d 24 (N.D. 1992)
Holter v. City of Sheyenne , 480 N.W.2d 736 (N.D. 1992)
Sampson v. State , 478 N.W.2d 566 (N.D. 1991)
Interest of B.G. , 477 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1991)
Kelley v. Powers , 477 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 1991)
Reed v. Hillsboro Public School District No. 9 , 477 N.W.2d 237 (N.D. 1991)
Walker v. Schneider , 477 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 1991)
Christianson v. City of Bismarck , 476 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 1991)
Gullickson v. Stark County Board of County Commissioners , 474 N.W.2d 890 (N.D. 1991)
Wayne-Juntunen Fertilizer Company v. Lassonde , 474 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 1991)
Adolph Rub Trust v. Rub , 473 N.W.2d 442 (N.D. 1991)
Interest of C.J.A , 473 N.W.2d 439 (N.D. 1991)
Interest of M. Z. , 472 N.W.2d 222 (N.D. 1991)
Jensen v. Powers , 472 N.W.2d 223 (N.D. 1991)
Peterson v. McKenzie County Public School District No. 1 , 467 N.W.2d 456 (N.D. 1991)
State ex rel. Rayl v. Hettinger County , 467 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 1991)
Soentgen v. Quain & Ramstad Clinic , 467 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 1991)
Whitaker v. Century 21 , 466 N.W.2d 114 (N.D. 1991)
Petition of Mees , 465 N.W.2d 172 (N.D. 1991)
Keidel v. Mehrer , 464 N.W.2d 815 (N.D. 1991)
Estate of Hourigan , 464 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1990)
United Hospital v. D'Annunzio , 466 N.W.2d 595 (N.D. 1990)
United Hospital v. D'Annunzio , 462 N.W.2d 652 (N.D. 1990)
Fredericks v. Eide-Kirschmann Ford , 462 N.W.2d 164 (N.D. 1990)
Vorachek v. Citizens State Bank of Lankin , 461 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1990)
Lynch v. Williston City Commission , 460 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 1990)
Fargo Beverage Co. v. City of Fargo , 459 N.W.2d 770 (N.D. 1990)
Jensen v. Little , 459 N.W.2d 237 (N.D. 1990)
ND Council of School Admin. v. Sinner , 458 N.W.2d 280 (N.D. 1990)
First Natl. Bk. v. Veterans Admin. , 458 N.W.2d 339 (N.D. 1990)
Wayne-Juntunen Fertilizer Co. v. Lassonde , 456 N.W.2d 519 (N.D. 1990)
Lill v. Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative , 456 N.W.2d 527 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Rathjen , 455 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 1990)
Schempp-Cook v. Cook , 455 N.W.2d 216 (N.D. 1990)
Western Cooperative Credit Union v. Hagemeister , 454 N.W.2d 531 (N.D. 1990)
Pelkey v. City of Fargo , 453 N.W.2d 801 (N.D. 1990)
Hansen v. First American Bank & Trust of Minot , 452 N.W.2d 770 (N.D. 1990)
Binek v. Ziebarth , 456 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 1990)
Binek v. Ziebarth , 452 N.W.2d 327 (N.D. 1990)
Danzl v. City of Bismarck , 451 N.W.2d 127 (N.D. 1990)
Schiermeister v. Riskedahl , 449 N.W.2d 566 (N.D. 1989)
Sletten v. Briggs , 448 N.W.2d 607 (N.D. 1989)
Lang v. Bank of Steele , 449 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 1989)
Kuller v. Ganje , 403 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 1987)
Raaum v. Powers , 396 N.W.2d 306 (N.D. 1986)
Dahlen v. Dahlen , 393 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 1986)
Wiedemeier v. Herr , 392 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 1986)
Fargo Womens Health Organization, Inc. v. Larson , 391 N.W.2d 627 (N.D. 1986)
Brown v. Will , 388 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 1986)
State, ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furniture Co. , 386 N.W.2d 901 (N.D. 1986)
Steffes v. Potter , 392 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 1986)
State, ex rel. Jones v. Prettyman , 385 N.W.2d 489 (N.D. 1986)
Production Credit Association of Minot v. Schlak , 383 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 1986)
Solen Public School District No. 3 v. Heisler , 381 N.W.2d 201 (N.D. 1986)
City of Mandan v. Mi-Jon News, Inc. , 381 N.W.2d 540 (N.D. 1986)
Gibbons v. Blair , 376 N.W.2d 22 (N.D. 1985)
Hastings Pork v. Johanneson , 372 N.W.2d 868 (N.D. 1985)
Matador Service, Inc. v. Missouri Basin Well Service, Inc. , 367 N.W.2d 749 (N.D. 1985)
Scherbenske Excavating, Inc. v. North Dakota State Highway Department , 365 N.W.2d 485 (N.D. 1985)
Allen v. City of Minot , 363 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 1985)
Cloverdale Foods Co. v. City of Mandan , 364 N.W.2d 56 (N.D. 1985)
Houser v. Gilbert , 364 N.W.2d 62 (N.D. 1985)
Quist v. Best Western International, Inc. , 354 N.W.2d 656 (N.D. 1984)
City of Fargo v. Windmill, Inc. , 350 N.W.2d 32 (N.D. 1984)
Martinson v. Raugutt , 346 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1984)
Allen v. White Drug of Minot, Inc. , 346 N.W.2d 279 (N.D. 1984)
Anderson v. State, d.b.a. The Bank of North Dakota , 344 N.W.2d 489 (N.D. 1984)
Rheaume v. State , 339 N.W.2d 90 (N.D. 1983)
Jensen v. Zuern , 336 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1983)
Zuern v. Jensen , 336 N.W.2d 329 (N.D. 1983)
Amerada Hess Corporation v. Furlong Oil & Minerals Co. , 336 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1983)
Minch v. City of Fargo , 332 N.W.2d 71 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Backer , 331 N.W.2d 4 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Jensen , 331 N.W.2d 42 (N.D. 1983)
Yusten v. Monson , 325 N.W.2d 285 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Gates , 325 N.W.2d 166 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Knoefler , 325 N.W.2d 192 (N.D. 1982)
R.B.J. Apartments, Inc. v. Gate City Savings & Loan Association , 315 N.W.2d 284 (N.D. 1982)
State, ex rel. Olson v. W.R.G. Enterprises, Inc. , 314 N.W.2d 842 (N.D. 1982)
Bond v. Busch , 313 N.W.2d 704 (N.D. 1981)
Munch v. City of Mott , 311 N.W.2d 17 (N.D. 1981)
Sigurdson v. Lahr & Lahr, Inc. , 310 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1981)
Rothe v. S-N-Go Stores, Inc. , 308 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 1981)
City of Grand Forks v. Grand Forks Herald, Inc. , 307 N.W.2d 572 (N.D. 1981)
Thomas C. Roel Associates, Inc. v. Henrikson , 303 N.W.2d 543 (N.D. 1981)
Lucke v. Lucke , 300 N.W.2d 231 (N.D. 1980)
Marshall v. City of Beach Park District , 294 N.W.2d 623 (N.D. 1980)
Litten v. City of Fargo , 294 N.W.2d 628 (N.D. 1980)
Center State Bank v. State Banking Board , 283 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 1979)
Center State Bank v. State Banking Board , 276 N.W.2d 132 (N.D. 1979)
Saba v. City of Bismarck , 275 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 1979)
Bergstrom v. Bergstrom , 271 N.W.2d 546 (N.D. 1978)
Crandall v. North Dakota High School Activities Association , 261 N.W.2d 921 (N.D. 1978)
Lohnes v. Cloud , 254 N.W.2d 430 (N.D. 1977)
Blue Arm v. Volk , 254 N.W.2d 427 (N.D. 1977)
Peoples State Bank of Velva v. State Bank of Towner , 258 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 1977)
Peoples State Bank of Velva v. State Bank of Towner , 253 N.W.2d 174 (N.D. 1977)
Dickinson Public School District No. 1 v. Scott , 252 N.W.2d 216 (N.D. 1977)
George v. Compson , 251 N.W.2d 743 (N.D. 1977)
McLean v. Jones , 247 N.W.2d 469 (N.D. 1976)
United Plainsmen v. N.D. State Water Conservation Comm'n , 247 N.W.2d 457 (N.D. 1976)
Petition of Dengler , 246 N.W.2d 758 (N.D. 1976)
Community Memorial Hospital v. Olson , 246 N.W.2d 91 (N.D. 1976)
Lefeure Sales Inc. v. Rippley Construction, Inc. , 238 N.W.2d 673 (N.D. 1976)
Cottle v. Kranz , 231 N.W.2d 777 (N.D. 1975)
Halldorson v. State School Construction Fund , 224 N.W.2d 814 (N.D. 1974)
Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association , 226 N.W.2d 371 (N.D. 1974)
Rogelstad v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association , 224 N.W.2d 544 (N.D. 1974)
Horst v. Guy , 219 N.W.2d 153 (N.D. 1974)
Svihl v. Gress , 216 N.W.2d 110 (N.D. 1974)
Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Bd of Comm'ns of the City of Fargo , 211 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1973)
Schollmeyer v. Saxowsky , 211 N.W.2d 377 (N.D. 1973)
Schollmeyer v. Engelhardt , 211 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 1973)
Wagener v. Clairmont , 211 N.W.2d 751 (N.D. 1973)
Stack v. Stack , 211 N.W.2d 392 (N.D. 1973)
Vogel v. Roberts , 204 N.W.2d 393 (N.D. 1973)
Vogel v. Roberts , 202 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 1973)
Brusegaard v. Schroeder , 201 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1972)
Brusegaard v. Schroeder , 199 N.W.2d 921 (N.D. 1972)
Stuber v. Taylor , 200 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 1972)
Municipal Airport Authority of the City of Fargo v. Halland , 198 N.W.2d 218 (N.D. 1972)
Litchville Public School District v. Hastings Public School District , 198 N.W.2d 131 (N.D. 1972)
State ex rel. Holloway v. First Amercan Bank and Trust Company , 197 N.W.2d 14 (N.D. 1972)
Berg v. Kremers , 193 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1971)
Kuntz v. Benz , 187 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 1971)
State ex rel. Holloway v. First American Bank and Trust Co. , 186 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1971)
Security State Bank v. State of North Dakota , 181 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 1970)
Richland County v. State , 180 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 1970)
State v. General Insurance Company of America , 179 N.W.2d 123 (N.D. 1970)
State Board of Architecture v. Kirkham, Michael & Associates, Inc. , 179 N.W.2d 409 (N.D. 1970)
Harrie v. Kirkham, Michael & Associates, Inc. , 179 N.W.2d 413 (N.D. 1970)
Walker v. Peterson , 167 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 1969)
Johnson v. Frelich , 165 N.W.2d 343 (N.D. 1969)
Stark County v. State of North Dakota , 160 N.W.2d 101 (N.D. 1968)
Rude v. Letnes , 154 N.W.2d 380 (N.D. 1967)
Budge v. Anderson , 146 N.W.2d 169 (N.D. 1966)
Erling v. Haman , 144 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1966)
Walker v. Weilenman , 143 N.W.2d 689 (N.D. 1966)
Pierce County Abstract v. Petterson , 142 N.W.2d 620 (N.D. 1966)
Gebeke v. Arthur Mercantile Co. , 138 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 1965)
Galloway v. Forum Publishing Co. , 138 N.W.2d 798 (N.D. 1965)
Bismarck Pub. School Dist. No. 1 v. Hirsch , 136 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 1965)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 09/05/2008