Opinions
On this page, you can search and view the Supreme Court’s opinions. If you wish to review the docket or documents filed in a matter, please go to the Court’s public portal search page.
1801 - 1810 of 12403 results
|
State v. Pailing
2019 ND 283 Highlight: A district court did not violate the defendant’s due process rights or abuse its discretion in overruling the defendant’s objection and denying the motion for mistrial concerning the State’s anecdote during closing argument. |
|
State Tax Commissioner v. Bosset
2019 ND 282 Highlight: A district court summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (6) and (7). |
|
Wilber v. Scaff
2019 ND 281 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Continental Resources v. N.D. Dep't. of Environmental Quality
2019 ND 280 Highlight: Where the legislature has deferred to an administrative agency’s expertise to develop rules, and has declined to provide clear direction on the substance of the rules to be developed, the “purely legal question” exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply. |
|
Saastad v. Saastad
2019 ND 279
Highlight: A district court’s award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. |
|
State v. Job
2019 ND 278 Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. |
|
Matter of O.H.W. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 277 Highlight: A district court’s order denying a petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Legare
2019 ND 276 Highlight: An Alford plea does not preserve non-jurisdictional claims for appeal. |
|
Krump-Wooton v. Krump
2019 ND 275 Highlight: A district court’s judgment denying a motion to modify parenting time and a motion to modify primary residential responsibility is affirmed. |
|
State v. Maines (consolidated w/20180396)
2019 ND 274 Highlight: A district court may extend an offenders’ sentence if the offender is found to be a habitual offender under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09. Section 12.1-32-02(9), N.D.C.C., does not apply to an offender’s out of state felony convictions for purposes of determining if the offender is a habitual offender. Section 12.1-32-09, N.D.C.C., specifically refers to convictions in another state and defines a felony in another state as one that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or more, regardless of the actual punishment imposed. |