New opinions: June 2 Tuesday, June 2, 2020
The Supreme Court has issued 20 new opinions. The summaries are below.
To see an opinion, click on the "View Opinion" button. Opinions display in a printable format. Hyperlinks to all North Dakota opinions and rules cited in an opinion are included in the text: hover over the citation and click to follow the hyperlink.
See other Supreme Court opinions at: /supreme-court/opinions
|
Davies v. State 2020 ND 128 Highlight: A district court judgment dismissing an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Mooney 2020 ND 127 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Rustad v. Baumgartner 2020 ND 126 Highlight: The “law of the case” doctrine is the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same. The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms. |
|
Estate of Sande 2020 ND 125 Highlight: Affirmative defenses must be pled or are waived. |
|
State v. Powley 2020 ND 124 Highlight: Warrantless search of a parolee’s cell phone was reasonable where the probationer was incarcerated for aggravated assault, the parolee’s conditions of parole included a search clause, and law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion parolee’s cell phone contained communications between parolee and victim of aggravated assault. |
|
State v. Selzler 2020 ND 123 Highlight: A district court’s order granting a motion to suppress evidence subsequent to an invalid traffic stop of a vehicle is affirmed. |
|
State v. Stenbak 2020 ND 122 Highlight: The criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. McGowen 2020 ND 121 Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a continuance. Evidence was sufficient to support guilty verdicts, and the district court did not err when it ordered the defendant to pay restitution for injuries caused by the defendant’s assaults. |
|
State v. Washington 2020 ND 120 Highlight: A district court properly denied a motion to suppress by correctly applying the remedy for unlawful official conduct in a preventing-arrest case by permitting the defendant to raise the factual defense of unlawfulness. |
|
State v. Soucy 2020 ND 119 Highlight: Judicial notice is governed by N.D.R.Ev. 201. A district court must take notice only if a party requests it and supplies the court with the necessary information. |
|
State v. Yoney 2020 ND 118 Highlight: A party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party. The obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply to errors waived through the doctrine of invited error. |
|
Morales v. State 2020 ND 117 Highlight: Section 29-32.1-01, N.D.C.C., only permits a person who has been convicted of a crime to apply for post-conviction relief. When a criminal judgment has been reversed and remanded by this Court an individual has not been convicted of a crime and is not entitled to post-conviction relief. |
|
Gerving v. Gerving, et al. 2020 ND 116 Highlight: In divorce cases, the district court must make an equitable property distribution. |
|
Kling v. NDDOT 2020 ND 115 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative suspension of driving privileges for a period of 91 days is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Axtman v. Axtman 2020 ND 114 Highlight: Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), a district court may amend a judgment to correct a mistake resulting from an oversight or omission that causes the judgment to fail to reflect the court’s intent. |
|
Voigt v. Nelson 2020 ND 113 Highlight: Section 8.6, N.D.R.Ct., governs parenting investigators and incorporates the code of conduct. The code of conduct provides a parenting investigator should aggressively strive to achieve professional independence and objectivity. |
|
Dellinger v. Wolf, et al. 2020 ND 112 Highlight: The Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide statutory authorization for immediate appeals of decisions concerning insurers’ duty to defend. |
|
Thiel v. Thiel 2020 ND 111 Highlight: District court orders denying motions for continuance and for appointment of a parenting investigator and a divorce judgment are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Sims v. Sims, et al. 2020 ND 110 Highlight: Extended parenting time with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely awarded if the child is old enough, absent a reason for denying it. |
|
Horvath v. State 2020 ND 109 Highlight: A district court’s order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |