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.
1 - 10 of 12224 results
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
2026 ND 18
Docket No.: 20250441
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disbarment
Author: Per Curiam
Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
2026 ND 18
Docket No.: 20250442
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disbarment
Author: Not Available
Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
2026 ND 18
Docket No.: 20250443
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disbarment
Author: Not Available
Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
2026 ND 18
Docket No.: 20250444
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disbarment
Author: Not Available
Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
2026 ND 17
Docket No.: 20250439
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disbarment
Author: Per Curiam
Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
2026 ND 17
Docket No.: 20250440
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disbarment
Author: Not Available
Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.
Sanderson v. Cole
2026 ND 16
Docket No.: 20250288
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 3 a civil action is commenced by the service of a summons. Rule 3, N.D.R.Civ.P., allows the defendant to file the complaint in district court.
Rule 3, N.D.R.Civ.P., differs from Fed.R.Civ.P. 3, which requires filing of a complaint to commence an action.
Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 5, unless otherwise authorized by rule or statute, a party seeking to file an initiating pleading must provide proof that the pleading was served under Rule 4. Failure to file proof that the initiating pleading was filed is subject to N.D.R.Civ.P. 61 harmless error analysis.
Prosecutors may be entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions undertaken in accordance with their official duties.
Prosecuting attorneys are considered quasi-judicial officers entitled to absolute immunity granted judges when their activities are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.
The prevailing party of a frivolous action shall be awarded attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01(2).
Johnson v. State
2026 ND 15
Docket No.: 20250287
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam
Highlight: A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Williamson v. State
2026 ND 14
Docket No.: 20250365
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam
Highlight: A district court judgment denying application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).
State v. Luetzen
2026 ND 13
Docket No.: 20250223
Filing Date: 1/29/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight: Individuals who have been convicted of certain felony offenses are prohibited from owning a firearm or having one in possession. Under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-01-01(11), to obtain a conviction based on constructive possession, the State must prove the person had the power and intention to exercise control. Actual possession, on the other hand, may be proven by establishing direct physical control. The offense is no longer exclusively a strict liability offense, but it also does not always require proof of intent.
Under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-01-01(3), a "firearm" is defined as any device that expels or is readily capable of expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. This definition requires the State to prove a gun is functional. Direct evidence is not required; functionality may be proved by the surrounding facts and circumstances, including testimony from lay witnesses. Caselaw has not established a clear or obvious legal rule as to what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove a handgun is able to expel or readily capable of expelling a projectile.
