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.
1 - 100 of 12137 results
|
State v. Krall
2026 ND 7
Highlight: In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to warrant the conviction. |
|
Ziemann v. Grosz
2026 ND 6
Highlight: The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the district 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. |
|
Gum v. Muddy Boyz Drywall
2026 ND 5 Highlight: A party does not have a right to appeal if there is no final judgment or proper N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification. |
|
Weigel, et al. v. Albertson
2026 ND 4
Highlight: An order from a district court granting a motion to disqualify an attorney is not appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(3) or the collateral order doctrine. |
|
Rangel v. State
2026 ND 3 Highlight: An order granting a motion for summary disposition of postconviction relief applications is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
State v. Mogren
2026 ND 2
Highlight: When a container has been previously opened by a government agent under lawful authority, and there is no substantial likelihood its contents have changed, a warrantless search of that container by law enforcement does not violate the |
|
Pederson v. State
2026 ND 1
Highlight: Ineffective assistance of counsel claims ordinarily are unsuited for summary disposition and denial without an evidentiary hearing. |
|
State v. Lawrence
2025 ND 237 Highlight: A district court order denying a petition to return forfeited bail is affirmed. |
|
White Bird v. State
2025 ND 236 Highlight: A judgment denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Tischmak v. Theurer, et al.
2025 ND 235
Highlight: District courts have wide judicial discretion in partition actions to do equity and to make a fair and just division of the property or proceeds between the parties, and great flexibility in fashioning appropriate relief for the parties. |
|
State v. Medina
2025 ND 234
Highlight: Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., addresses conditional guilty pleas and requires: (1) the defendant, any defendant's attorney and the prosecuting attorney consent in writing to the conditional plea; (2) the court accept the conditional plea and enter an order; and (3) the judgment specify the plea is conditional. |
|
State v. Solis
2025 ND 233
Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring registration as a sex offender. |
|
Bohe v. State
2025 ND 232 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) & (4). |
|
City of Williston v. Bauer
2025 ND 231 Highlight: The order denying the defendant's motion for recovery of attorney's fees and costs, brought in a criminal case after acquittal, is affirmed. |
|
Markestad v. Markestad, et al.
2025 ND 230
Highlight: The district court must state its findings of fact with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions. |
|
State v. Jenkins
2025 ND 229
Highlight: This Court lacks jurisdiction to review untimely appeals. |
|
Wardner v. Porath, et al.
2025 ND 228
Highlight: A district court has jurisdiction to modify a foreign custody determination, including visitation orders, when the child's home state is North Dakota and the child and parents no longer reside in the issuing jurisdiction. |
|
Geiger v. State
2025 ND 227 Highlight: An order denying relief in a postconviction proceeding is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Duffi v. State
2025 ND 226 Highlight: An order denying postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Myrick, et al. v. Holmes
2025 ND 225 Highlight: An appeal from a disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
State v. Hamilton
2025 ND 224 Highlight: The district court's order removing a condition from the defendant's criminal judgment that required money from his prison account to be applied to his child support obligations is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
State v. Gaede
2025 ND 223 Highlight: An order denying a North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is summarily affirmed under North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Jaeger
2025 ND 222
Highlight: Pursuant to N.D.R.Crim.P. 36, a district court has authority to correct a clerical error in a written order that inaccurately states the court's oral pronouncement of sentence when the correction does not make the sentence more onerous than |
|
Thornberg v. Thornberg, et al.
2025 ND 221
Highlight: The district court's order holding the appellant in contempt of court for interfering with the appellee's parenting time is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Matter of William C. Hansen and Verna Hansen Trust
2025 ND 220 Highlight: North Dakota Century Code § 59-14-02(5) governs whether an agent acting under a power of attorney has authority to amend a trust. It permits amendments "only to the extent expressly authorized by the terms of the trust or the power, exercised in writing and delivered to the trustee." Under N.D.C.C. § 59-19-02(1)(b), the express authorization requirement applies "to all judicial proceedings concerning trusts which are commenced after July 31, 2007." The word "express" means clearly and unmistakably communicated; stated with directness and clarity. Express authority cannot be implied from general provisions. |
|
Dukart, et al. v. Holmes
2025 ND 219 Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
Mollner v. State
2025 ND 218 Highlight: An order denying relief in a postconviction proceeding is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of J.C.
2025 ND 217 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is remanded for specified findings of active efforts under N.D.C.C. § 27-19.7-01(2). The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction. |
|
Interest of S.C.Y.
2025 ND 217 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is remanded for specified findings of active efforts under N.D.C.C. § 27-19.7-01(2). The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction. |
|
Estate of Lepp
2025 ND 216
Highlight: Probate law distinguishes between informal and formal proceedings and between unsupervised and supervised administration. |
|
State v. Hoff
2025 ND 215
Highlight: A defendant can waive his right to counsel either expressly, or through his conduct. |
|
Interest of G.S.
2025 ND 214 Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of A.S.
2025 ND 214 Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Kolstad v. Claussen
2025 ND 213
Highlight: The district court must state its findings of fact with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions. A court's findings of fact are sufficient if they afford a clear understanding of the court's decision and assist the appellate court in conducting its review. |
|
Wright, et al. v. Holmes
2025 ND 212 Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
State v. Ahmed
2025 ND 211
Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-01-01(3), a firearm means any weapon that will expel, or is readily capable of expelling, a projectile by the action of an explosive. |
|
State v. Running Bear
2025 ND 210 Highlight: A jury verdict's criminal conviction for child abuse of a victim under six years of age is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Fairville Township v. Wells Cty. Water Resource District
2025 ND 209 Highlight: Section 61-16.1-51, N.D.C.C., does not authorize water resource boards to assess their costs against governing bodies not acting as a landowner. |
|
Adoption of G.M.H.
2025 ND 208
Highlight: District courts have discretion to terminate parental rights based on abandonment by evaluating whether a noncustodial parent failed to communicate with or support their child without justifiable cause. Courts must assess the specific facts of each case to determine if the parent's lack of contact and care was justified by the circumstances or represented an unjustified failure to maintain the parent-child relationship. |
|
Interest of B.L.H.
2025 ND 207 Highlight: An order granting involuntary treatment with prescribed medication is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
MidFirst Bank v. Young, et al.
2025 ND 206
Highlight: A mortgagor lacks standing to challenge a mortgage assignment between the assignor and assignee as a non-party to that transaction. |
|
Harris v. State
2025 ND 205
Highlight: A plaintiff seeking postconviction relief is required to show but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability the result at trial would have been different. |
|
State v. Martinez
2025 ND 204
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 24, a jury is not empaneled until all jurors, including any alternates, have been qualified, accepted, and sworn. |
|
State v. Martinez
2025 ND 204
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 24, a jury is not empaneled until all jurors, including any alternates, have been qualified, accepted, and sworn. |
|
Interest of A.D.-B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of M.D.-B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of C.B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Kalmio v. State
2025 ND 202 Highlight: An order denying relief in a postconviction proceeding is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
State v. Bell
2025 ND 201
Highlight: When interpreting a statute, the primary goal is to determine the legislature's intent by looking to the statute's plain language and attempting to give each word, phrase, and sentence its ordinary meaning. |
|
State v. Lizotte
2025 ND 200 Highlight: A district court order revoking probation and resentencing the defendant is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic. et al. v. Wrigley, et al.
2025 ND 199 Highlight: A sufficient majority was not reached to declare unconstitutional N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1, which criminalizes abortion with exceptions. The effect of the separate opinions is that a district court judgment declaring N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 unconstitutional and void is reversed. |
|
Johnson v. Staiger
2025 ND 198
Highlight: District courts may properly consider a parent's alcohol abuse and act of driving under the influence when determining whether a material change of circumstances exists. However, our cases do not show an isolated incident of a parent driving under the influence automatically mandates a finding of a material change of circumstances. |
|
State v. Vetter
2025 ND 197
Highlight: Issues not raised or considered in the district court, including claims of constitutionally protected activity, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, unless the issue rises to the level of obvious error. It is the defendant's burden to show an obvious error that affects a substantial right, and the discretion to notice obvious error need not be exercised when obvious error is not raised on appeal. |
|
Diop v. Altepeter, et al.
2025 ND 196 Highlight: An order denying Altepeter's motion to amend parenting time provisions in a divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) and (8). |
|
Clemenson v. Clemenson, et al.
2025 ND 195
Highlight: The domestic violence factor in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) requires the district court find credible evidence that domestic violence occurred. The court next must find an instance of (1) serious bodily injury, or (2) use of a dangerous weapon, or (3) a pattern of domestic violence within a reasonable time proximate to the proceeding. |
|
State v. Gores
2025 ND 194
Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a bench trial is affirmed because sufficient evidence supports the convictions. |
|
Boyda v. Boyda, et al.
2025 ND 193
Highlight: An existing parenting plan that creates conflict between a parent and the children can be a material change of circumstances for modification of the plan. |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6, ECJD
2025 ND 192 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Wallette
2025 ND 190
Highlight: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the North Dakota Constitution respectively prohibit infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" and "cruel or unusual punishments." A punishment in a non-capital case that is grossly disproportionate to the offense is cruel and unusual. The disproportionality principle is narrow. It forbids only extreme sentences. |
|
Smith v. State
2025 ND 189
Highlight: An attorney's representation of a criminal defendant fell below an objective |
|
State v. Miller
2025 ND 188
Highlight: Orders revoking probation and resentencing defendant for aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
|
State v. Miller
2025 ND 188
Highlight: Orders revoking probation and resentencing defendant for aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
|
Overton v. Overton
2025 ND 187
Highlight: Procedural due process does not require the district court to ensure incarcerated parties to civil litigation are present at hearings. |
|
State v. Barrett
2025 ND 186
Highlight: A jury's question or request to view evidence during deliberations shall take place in open court, unless the defendant agrees otherwise. |
|
State v. Watterud
2025 ND 185
Highlight: A victim's testimony about misconduct occurring over several years can be sufficient to support a conviction. |
|
McMahon v. Sanford, et al.
2025 ND 184
Highlight: A professional negligence action against a physician, nurse, or hospital generally requires an expert affidavit. Generally, decisions to provide medication, refuse to provide medication, or discharge a patient are medical decisions requiring the expertise of medical professionals. |
|
State v. Weber
2025 ND 183
Highlight: A party bears the burden to correctly label its motion as to inform the court of the relief sought. The district court did not err when it treated appellant's motion as a request for relief under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) based on its label. |
|
State v. Wilson
2025 ND 182
Highlight: A probationer's right to counsel does not arise from the Sixth Amendment but rather from North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f)(3)(A)(iii). Because of the statutory origin of a probationer's right to counsel at a revocation hearing, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding does not apply. |
|
Interest of M.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of A.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of C.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Heisler v. Reiger, et al.
2025 ND 180
Highlight: A post-trial motion invoking both N.D.R.Civ.P. 59 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) extends the time to file an appeal until notice of entry of the order disposing of the motion when the motion is brought within the time limits set forth in N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(c)(2) and N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3). |
|
Eggl v. State
2025 ND 179 Highlight: Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when his client chose to enter an open plea rather than accept the State's plea offer where counsel provided his client the options on how to proceed, explained the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and left the final decision on how to proceed to his client. |
|
State v. Chambers
2025 ND 178 Highlight: A criminal defendant failed to show his substantial rights were prejudiced by the potential ambiguity of pleading guilty to both a cognizable offense and a non-cognizable offense where there was a sufficient factual basis to support the guilty plea to the cognizable offense. The requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(B) did not apply where the criminal defendant entered an open plea rather than pleading guilty under a plea agreement in which the parties presented a joint recommendation on a proposed sentence. |
|
Schultz v. Schultz
2025 ND 177 Highlight: A district court divorce judgment awarding equal residential responsibility and distributing the marital estate is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Hernandez v. State
2025 ND 176 Highlight: A district court order dismissing an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
Corey v. Kenneh
2025 ND 175
Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is affirmed. |
|
State v. King
2025 ND 174
Highlight: Obvious error analysis requires consideration whether the district court clearly deviated from applicable current law. |
|
Olson v. Olson, et al.
2025 ND 173
Highlight: Certified questions from our state district courts have a more stringent standard than foreign courts, requiring the question to be determinative, because the parties have a right to appeal. |
|
State v. Santiago Agosto
2025 ND 172 Highlight: A district court criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Interest of Skorick
2025 ND 171 Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. |
|
Williamson v. Williamson
2025 ND 170 Highlight: A district court's judgment of divorce, order denying reconsideration, and order awarding attorney's fees is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (4), and (6). |
|
Thompson v. City of Adams, et al.
2025 ND 169 Highlight: A district court judgment granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al.
2025 ND 168
Highlight: Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Once a prima facie showing of valid service has been presented, the burden shifts to the defendant to present facts and documentation to establish service of process was insufficient. |
|
Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al.
2025 ND 168
Highlight: Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Once a prima facie showing of valid service has been presented, the burden shifts to the defendant to present facts and documentation to establish service of process was insufficient. |
|
State v. Jemal
2025 ND 167
Highlight: In probation revocation proceedings, a district court need not make factual findings to support its decision to revoke probation instead of choosing alternative sanctions. |
|
Sutherby v. Astanina, et al.
2025 ND 166 Highlight: A district court must credit a noncustodial parent for voluntary child support payments made during the pendency of an action when calculating past-due support obligations. When a court orders child support with a retroactive effective date, it must offset any past-due support owed by payments the noncustodial parent made to the custodial parent for the children's benefit during the relevant period. |
|
Rugland v. State
2025 ND 165 Highlight: An order denying a postconviction relief application is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of Hoff
2025 ND 164 Highlight: An order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is reversed and remanded for further findings. A district court's order finding an individual remains a sexually dangerous individual must contain sufficient and specific factual findings to show the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. |
|
State v. Moen
2025 ND 163
Highlight: The Confrontation Clause provides two protections to criminal defendants: the right to physically face someone who testifies against them, and the right to cross-examine. Although the right to confront witnesses is of a constitutional magnitude, it is not absolute and, in appropriate cases, may bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. |
|
State v. Guthmiller
2025 ND 162
Highlight: In criminal cases, errors not raised in the district court may be either forfeited errors or waived errors. Forfeiture is the failure to timely assert a right, while waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a right. |
|
Anderson v. Krueger
2025 ND 161
Highlight: A district court may enter a protection order when there has been a showing of actual or imminent domestic violence. A district court's finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. |
|
Diop v. Altepeter, et al.
2025 ND 160
Highlight: An appeal from an order finding the appellant in contempt of court in a divorce and parental responsibility action is dismissed as untimely. |
|
Duchaine v. State
2025 ND 159 Highlight: An order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Pittsley
2025 ND 158 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of child neglect is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Interest of K.I.B.
2025 ND 157
Highlight: The State is an aggrieved party under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-26 and may appeal a juvenile court's ruling exempting a juvenile adjudicated delinquent as a sexual offender from registration as a sexual offender. |