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.
5401 - 5450 of 12359 results
Anderson v. Director, N.D. Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 97
Highlight: An investigative stop of a vehicle requires the officer have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a motorist has violated or is violating the law. |
Negaard v. Negaard (Consol. w/20040312) (Cross-Ref. w/20010251 & 20030174)
2005 ND 96
Highlight: An order or judgment finding a person guilty of contempt is a final order or judgment for purposes of appeal. |
Koenig v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 95 Highlight: The Department does not lack jurisdiction to suspend a license merely because an officer failed to forward test results that were not printed because of a printer malfunction. |
Glasow v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, et al.
2005 ND 94 Highlight: Rule 23(l), N.D.R.Civ.P., governs the dismissal of all class actions, regardless of whether a motion to certify the class is filed. |
Smith v. Kulig
2005 ND 93
Highlight: A landowner's only duty to a trespasser is to refrain from harming the trespasser in a willful and wanton manner. |
Woods v. Ryan
2005 ND 92 Highlight: In deciding whether to change custody of a child, a court must use a two-part analysis, considering first whether there has been a material change of circumstances, and then, if the court decides there has been, deciding whether a change in custody is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. |
Bollin v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 91
Highlight: Chemical analysis results will not be admitted into evidence if the test was not performed in accordance with methods and devices approved by the state toxicologist. |
Choice Financial Group v. Schellpfeffer, et al.
2005 ND 90 Highlight: Where partial summary judgment is rendered for only part of the damages sought by the plaintiff and consideration of further damages is reserved for a later date, the judgment is neither final nor on an entire claim, and there can be no certification of the partial summary judgment as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). |
State v. Olsen (Consolidated w/20050040)
2005 ND 89 Highlight: A criminal judgment following a jury conviction for burglary and a denial of post-conviction relief are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3). |
State v. Thompson
2005 ND 88 Highlight: An appeal from an order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (7). |
Disciplinary Board v. Christensen (CONSOLIDATE W/ 20050139 & 20050140)
2005 ND 87 Highlight: Lawyer reprimanded and ordered to pay costs of disciplinary proceedings. |
State v. Keller
2005 ND 86
Highlight: The right to a lesser-included-offense instruction requires that the offense be a lesser included offense of the greater, that the evidence be such that a jury could rationally find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser, and generally, that the instruction be requested. |
Eberts, et al. v. Billings Co. Board of Commissioners
2005 ND 85 Highlight: A board of county commissioners may condemn land for a road under quick take procedures in N.D.C.C. 24-05-09 through 24-05-15. |
Cusey v. Nagel
2005 ND 84 Highlight: A person who petitions for a disorderly conduct restraining order must allege specific facts or threats. |
Sorlie v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
2005 ND 83
Highlight: The pretermination due process procedures for terminating disability benefits do not apply to a lump-sum award. |
Hanson v. Hanson
2005 ND 82
Highlight: A district court may modify a prior custody order after a two-year period following the date of entry of an order establishing custody if the court finds that a material change in circumstances has occurred and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. A party seeking to modify a custody order bears the burden of showing that a change of custody is required. |
Aker v. ND Department of Transportation
2005 ND 81 Highlight: A judgment reversing an administrative agency decision suspending driving privileges is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
Jorgensen v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 80 Highlight: Inclusion of chemical test results in an officer's certified report to the Director of the North Dakota Department of Transportation under N.D.C.C. 39-20-03.1(3) is a basic and mandatory provision without which the department may not suspend a person's driving privileges. |
Edinger v. Governing Authority of Stutsman Co. Correctional Center
2005 ND 79 Highlight: When the information available to a governing body suggests a reasonable probability of future litigation or adversarial administrative proceedings, the governing body may close a portion of a public meeting and meet in executive session to receive and discuss the advice of its attorney. |
Interest of B.M., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2005 ND 78 Highlight: A judgment terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
State v. Bleibaum
2005 ND 77 Highlight: A criminal judgment following a jury conviction for aggravated assault, a class C felony, is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
May v. Sprynczynatyk
2005 ND 76
Highlight: Failure of the Department of Transportation to file the transcript of the administrative hearing within twenty days, as required by N.D.C.C. 39-20-06, does not automatically mandate summary reversal of the decision suspending a driver's license. |
State of ND v. NDSU, et al.
2005 ND 75
Highlight: For purposes of an insurance policy exclusion for surface water damage, surface water does not lose its character as surface water by being diverted underground through man-made structures. |
Home of Economy v. Burlington Northern
2005 ND 74 Highlight: The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 does not preempt state jurisdiction over railroad grade crossings. |
Litoff v. Pinter
2005 ND 73 Highlight: An order denying a motion for reinstatement of unsupervised visitation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
Paulson v. Paulson
2005 ND 72
Highlight: A trial court cannot delegate to anyone the power to decide questions of child custody or related issues. |
H-T Enterprises v. Antelope Creek Bison Ranch
2005 ND 71
Highlight: The purpose of the no-counterclaim provision in the eviction statute is to get a speedy determination of possession. |
Harter v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 70
Highlight: Section 39-20-04.1(1)(a), N.D.C.C., provides penalties for persons under the age of 21 who drive with a blood alcohol concentration of at least .02 percent by weight. |
Guardianship/Conservatorship of Van Sickle (Consolidated w/20040224)
2005 ND 69
Highlight: The Supreme Court will determine a moot issue if the matter is capable of repetition, yet evading review. |
Strand, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association ND, et al.
2005 ND 68
Highlight: A party alleging that a contractual provision is unconscionable must demonstrate some quantum of both procedural and substantive unconscionability, and courts are to balance the various factors, viewed in totality, to determine whether the contractual provision is so one-sided as to be unconscionable. |
Larson v. Larson
2005 ND 67
Highlight: In construing a statute, courts are to ascertain the legislature's intent, which initially must be sought from the statutory language itself, giving it its plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. |
Dvorak v. Dvorak
2005 ND 66
Highlight: Tax returns from the most recent five years are properly used to determine the self-employment income of an obligor in calculating child support obligations. |
Buri v. Ramsey, et al.
2005 ND 65
Highlight: A trial court's determination about whether a conversion has been committed is a finding of fact which will not be overturned on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. |
Interest of A.M.S. (Consolidated w/20040269 & 20040270)
2005 ND 64
Highlight: Federal law permits decisions regarding rebuttal of child support payments to be made under criteria established by the State. |
State v. Krull
2005 ND 63
Highlight: If a defendant does not object at trial to the introduction of a child's hearsay statements regarding sexual abuse, our inquiry is limited to whether the admission into evidence constitutes obvious error affecting substantial rights. |
Doll v. ND Department of Transportation
2005 ND 62 Highlight: Guidelines for use of a standard solution are not part of the approved method for conducting an Intoxilyzer test unless the State Toxicologist expressly includes them in the approved method filed with the clerk of district court. |
City of Horace v. City of Fargo
2005 ND 61
Highlight: Annexation statutes are construed liberally to encourage the natural and well-ordered development of municipalities. |
Makeeff v. City of Bismarck
2005 ND 60
Highlight: A landowner is not immune from liability for an accident that occurs on the landowner's premises just because the accident was caused by a natural accumulation of snow and ice. |
State v. Nelson
2005 ND 59
Highlight: If an application for a search warrant contains statements intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, the false material must be set aside, and if the remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded. |
Kastrow v. State
2005 ND 58 Highlight: Denial of post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
Wheeler v. Jahnke, et al. (Consol. w/20040362) (Cross-ref. w/20040341-20040343)
2005 ND 57 Highlight: A district court order affirming a magistrate's finding of probable cause to bind a defendant over for trial on charges of gross sexual imposition and encouraging the deprivation of a minor is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1). |
Jacob, et al. v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co., et al.
2005 ND 56
Highlight: Age alone, without other evidence, is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment in an age discrimination case. |
Simpson, et al. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., et al.
2005 ND 55
Highlight: For purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, parties and their privies are barred by a former judgment. |
Interest of R.F. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2005 ND 54
Highlight: An individual found to be a person requiring mental-health treatment has the right to the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of treatment. |
Frieze v. Frieze
2005 ND 53
Highlight: Section 14-09-06.6(5), N.D.C.C., limits the grounds upon which a court may grant a motion to change custody which is brought within two years following entry of the order establishing custody, and includes the persistent and willful denial of interference with visitation or a present environment which may endanger or impair the child's physical or emotional health or development. |
Thomas v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
2005 ND 52
Highlight: A willful failure to give a maximum consistent effort in a functional capacity assessment can constitute noncompliance with vocational rehabilitation. |
Larsen v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 51 Highlight: In interpreting a statute, a court may not disregard the letter of the statute under the pretext of pursuing its spirit, and may not add words to the statute. |
Roberts v. ND Department of Human Services
2005 ND 50
Highlight: An applicant for medicaid benefits has the burden of establishing eligibility for benefits and providing information necessary to establish eligibility. |
Kaiser v. State
2005 ND 49 Highlight: If, in responding to an application for post-conviction relief, the State moves for dismissal and presents matters outside the pleading and the court does not exclude them, the opposing party shall have 30 days after service of the State's brief within which to serve and file an answer brief and supporting papers. |
Gamboa v. State
2005 ND 48
Highlight: In post-conviction relief proceedings, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny default judgment when a petitioner cannot show he suffered any prejudice from the State's untimely response. |