Search Tips

Opinions

91 - 100 of 12539 results

State v. Bear King 2021 ND 16
Docket No.: 20200254
Filing Date: 2/17/2021
Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: The criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Interest of A.R.S. 2021 ND 15
Docket No.: 20200199
Filing Date: 2/10/2021
Case Type: JUVENILE LAW
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: District court judgment finding children are deprived is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Munzal v. State 2021 ND 14
Docket No.: 20200216
Filing Date: 2/3/2021
Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

Matter of Didier 2021 ND 13
Docket No.: 20200217
Filing Date: 2/3/2021
Case Type: CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying request for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

R & F Financial Services v. North American Building Solutions, et al. 2021 ND 12
Docket No.: 20190287
Filing Date: 1/12/2021
Case Type: CONTRACTS
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: All contracts entered into by the parties must be construed together, and only the provisions in the latter contracts which are inconsistent with the prior contracts will supersede.

This Court has recognized the doctrine of frustration of purpose may be used to avoid all or part of a contractual claim. The doctrine of frustration of purpose is applicable when after a contract is made, a party’s principal purpose is substantially frustrated without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made.

State v. Casatelli 2021 ND 11
Docket No.: 20200096
Filing Date: 1/12/2021
Case Type: DUI/DUS
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court’s decision on a motion to suppress will be affirmed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court’s findings and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

An investigative detention must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.

The State must establish that the seizure it seeks to justify on the basis of a reasonable suspicion was sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satisfy the conditions of an investigative seizure.

Interest of M.M. 2021 ND 10
Docket No.: 20200335
Filing Date: 1/12/2021
Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order terminating mother’s parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Rivera-Rieffel 2021 ND 9
Docket No.: 20200210
Filing Date: 1/12/2021
Case Type: HOMICIDE
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Criminal conviction for murder and child abuse is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Young v. Burleigh Morton Detention Center, et al. 2021 ND 8
Docket No.: 20200153
Filing Date: 1/12/2021
Case Type: OTHER (Civil)
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not occur unless the government knowingly intrudes into the attorney-client relationship and the intrusion prejudices the defendant or creates a substantial threat of prejudice.???

A correctional facility’s policy of allowing inmates or their attorneys to register attorney telephone numbers as confidential numbers not to be monitored does not constitute a violation of N.D.C.C. § 12-44.1-14(1), which requires correctional facilities to provide inmates confidential access to their attorneys.



State v. Aune 2021 ND 7
Docket No.: 20200159
Filing Date: 1/12/2021
Case Type: HOMICIDE
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A defendant may not challenge a jury verdict as inconsistent based upon an alleged error he invited by requesting an instruction on a lesser included offense. If a defendant does not object to the introduction of prior convictions at sentencing, and the prior convictions were not relied upon to enhance the term of incarceration, the appropriate standard of review is obvious error. It is not error to consider a defendant’s prior convictions as a part of their criminal history under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04 if there has been no showing that the prior convictions were uncounseled and without proper waiver.

Page 10 of 1254