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.
1131 - 1140 of 12235 results
|
Interest of T.L.E. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2021 ND 157 |
|
Interest of G.J.E.P. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated with 20210189)
2021 ND 156 |
|
Pinkney v. State
2021 ND 155
Highlight: Whether to grant a motion for a continuance rests within the district court’s discretion. |
|
State v. Lyman
2021 ND 154 Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted blood test results into evidence over the Defendant’s foundational objections that the State failed to prove scrupulous compliance with the approved method for collecting and submitting a blood specimen. |
|
Dubois v. State
2021 ND 153
Highlight: Counsel’s failure to raise a novel or groundbreaking legal claim does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. |
|
State v. Boger
2021 ND 152
Highlight: A mistake of fact may support reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop if the mistake was objectively reasonable. |
|
Ring v. NDDHS
2021 ND 151 Highlight: When ruling on a motion for substitution upon a party’s death, the district court must determine whether the case was extinguished by the death, and if not, whether the party seeking substitution is the proper successor. |
|
Lerfald v. Lerfald
2021 ND 150 Highlight: A party moving to modify parenting time must establish that a material change of circumstances has occurred since entry of the prior parenting time order and that modification is in the child’s best interests. |
|
Klundt v. Benjamin, et al.
2021 ND 149
Highlight: In proceedings relating to a motion to modify primary residential responsibility, a prima facie case warranting an evidentiary hearing consists of factual allegations sufficient to support a finding of a material change in circumstances and that a change is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. |
|
Isxaaq v. State (consolidated w/ 20210067 & 20210068)
2021 ND 148 Highlight: Whether an applicant for post-conviction relief adequately understands English without an interpreter is a finding of fact that will be affirmed on appeal if not clearly erroneous. An applicant cannot establish prejudice on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleging their attorney did not properly advise them on the immigration consequences of pleading guilty if the applicant offers only self-serving, subjective testimony that, with competent advice, they would have rejected a plea and proceeded to trial. An applicant must offer some evidence contemporaneous with the entry of the guilty plea to substantiate that the applicant would have gone to trial if he had known the deportation consequences of pleading guilty. |