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 12359 results
Goldade-Jose v. Jose, et al.
2022 ND 33
Docket No.: 20210231
Filing Date: 2/18/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam
Lessard v. Johnson
2022 ND 32
Docket No.: 20200206
Filing Date: 2/18/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
State v. Halsey
2022 ND 31
Docket No.: 20210090
Filing Date: 2/18/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight: A district court’s admission of prior bad acts evidence without the required three-step analyis was harmless error.
Absent a stipulation offered from a defendant, a court does not abuse its discretion in allowing the name and nature of a felony charge to be admitted into evidence to prove an element of the offense of preventing arrest.
State v. Davis
2022 ND 30
Docket No.: 20210152
Filing Date: 2/18/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight: Constitutional forfeiture doctrine recognized by adopting the hearsay exception under N.D.R.Ev. 804(b)(6).
Forfeiture by wrongdoing requires the State to prove (1) that the declarant-witness is unavailable; (2) that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct; (3) that the wrongful conduct procured the unavailability of the witness; and (4) that the defendant intended to procure the unavailability of the witness.
Forfeiture by wrongdoing was properly applied where the district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant murdered victim with intent to prevent testimony at criminal proceedings.
The State is not required to prove defendant intended to prevent victim from testifying in the same case in which testimony was offered. Intent to prevent testimony in foreseeable proceeding or investigation is sufficient.
A sentence is illegal if it is not authorized by the judgment of conviction, and a district court must abide by the terms of the judgment when amending the judgment to include restitution.
State v. Davis
2022 ND 30
Docket No.: 20210152
Filing Date: 2/18/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Orwig v. Orwig (consolidated w/20210141)
2022 ND 29
Docket No.: 20210140
Filing Date: 2/18/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight: Failure to comply with provisions of a separation or divorce decree relating to distribution of the parties’ property constitutes contempt of court.
A person aggrieved by contempt of court may seek imposition of a remedial sanction for the contempt by filing a motion for that purpose.
A party seeking a contempt sanction must clearly and satisfactorily prove the alleged contempt was committed.
Whether a contempt has been committed lies within the district court’s sound discretion, which will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Orwig v. Orwig (consolidated w/20210141)
2022 ND 29
Docket No.: 20210140
Filing Date: 2/18/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight: A motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is not automatically converted to a motion for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 when a party submits additional materials outside the pleadings, and the court has discretion in deciding whether to exclude the additional materials. A pleading that states a claim for relief is not required to have detailed factual allegations, but it must have more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim.
Christiansen v. NDDOT
2022 ND 27
Docket No.: 20210218
Filing Date: 1/27/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight: The Administrative Agencies Practice Act governs this Court’s review of the Department of Transportation’s decision to suspend a driver’s license.
Chapter 1-02, N.D.C.C., contains the traditional rules of statutory construction and interpretation.
Section 39-20-03.1, N.D.C.C., provides procedures law enforcement must follow after a person has tested over the legal limit for driving under the influence.
Section 39-20-04.1, N.D.C.C., provides the Department of Transportation’s authority to sanction a driver who has tested over the legal limit for driving under the influence.
Section 39-20-04.1(1), N.D.C.C., does not mention the timing of law enforcement forwarding the report, so the five-day directive to law enforcement in N.D.C.C. 39-20-03.1(4) does not affect the Department’s authority to suspend driving privileges.
When no remedy is provided by statute for a statutory violation, this Court looks at whether the victim of the violation was prejudiced.
