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.
5651 - 5700 of 12382 results
State v. McClary
2004 ND 98
Highlight: A jury verdict is inconsistent when, under the jury instructions and evidence, the verdict cannot be rationally reconciled. |
Tibert, et al. v. City of Minto, et al. (Cross ref. w/20030208)
2004 ND 97
Highlight: A district court's legal conclusion of mootness is reviewed de novo. |
Haley v. Dennis, et al.
2004 ND 96
Highlight: A jury verdict that assesses a percentage of fault to the defendant after finding the defendant was not negligent is an inconsistent and irreconcilable verdict. |
Hilgers v. Hilgers (Cross-reference w/ 20010208)
2004 ND 95
Highlight: N.D.R.Civ.P. 6(e), permitting an additional three days to be added to the time for service by mail, does not apply to extend the time when the time begins to run only after actual receipt of notice. |
Jaste v. Gailfus, et al.
2004 ND 94 Highlight: A court errs by deciding summary judgment on a legal doctrine other than those raised by the parties unless the parties are given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The error is reversible if not harmless. |
Wetsch v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2004 ND 93
Highlight: Refusal to submit to an onsite screening test constitutes a violation of informed consent law and may properly result in a one-year suspension of an individual's driver's license. |
Airport Inn Enterprises, Inc. v. Ramage
2004 ND 92
Highlight: A condition precedent is one that must be performed or happen before a duty of immediate performance arises on the promise that the condition qualifies. |
All New Gutter Service, Inc. v. Dusek
2004 ND 91 Highlight: Judgment finding no oral contract after a bench trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Tweeten
2004 ND 90 Highlight: A district court may not dismiss a case with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct unless a hearing is held in which it is determined by clear and convincing evidence the prosecution has proceeded in bad faith. |
Meyer v. Meyer
2004 ND 89
Highlight: A change in spousal support, which was initially awarded upon the parties' stipulation, should be made only with great reluctance by the trial court upon a showing of a material change in circumstances. |
State v. Helm
2004 ND 88 Highlight: Conviction for class C felony terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
Reciprocal Discipline of Chinquist
2004 ND 87 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
Oliver-Mercer Electric Coop. v. Davis, et al. (Consol. w/ 20030158)
2004 ND 86
Highlight: The right to a trial by jury is determined by the character of the issues as framed by the complaint or appearing on the face of the pleadings. |
State v. Clark
2004 ND 85
Highlight: An appellate court exercises its authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances in which the defendant has suffered a serious injustice. |
Matter of the Reciprocal Discipline of Johannson
2004 ND 84 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
Reciprocal Discipline of Schaefer
2004 ND 83 Highlight: Lawyer disbarment ordered. |
Peterson v. ND University System, et al.
2004 ND 82
Highlight: A writ of mandamus is not the appropriate avenue for judicial review of State Board of Higher Education decisions to dismiss tenured faculty members because tenure rights are contractual and not statutory in nature. |
Garcia v. State (consolidated w/20030307)
2004 ND 81
Highlight: To succeed on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove counsel's performance was deficient and the deficient performance prejudiced him. |
Keller v. Bolding
2004 ND 80
Highlight: A person's willful failure to destroy or prevent the spread of Canada thistle on land in the person's possession violates North Dakota's public policy. |
Riemers v. O'Halloran, et al.
2004 ND 79
Highlight: A party waives an issue by not providing supporting argument, and without supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit. |
State v. Parizek (consolidated w/20030086 through 20030088)
2004 ND 78
Highlight: Police officers may freeze a situation and conduct a limited investigative stop of persons present at the scene of a recently committed crime without violating the Fourth Amendment. |
State v. Buchholz
2004 ND 77
Highlight: A party's failure to object at trial to references to, and evidence of, other alleged bad acts waives that issue. |
Gullickson v. Kline
2004 ND 76
Highlight: Only a person who has been the victim of disorderly conduct, or the parent or guardian of a minor who has been a victim, may seek a disorderly conduct restraining order. |
State v. Causer
2004 ND 75
Highlight: The State is required to provide prior written notice of the alleged probation violations to a probationer. |
Danzl, et al. v. Heidinger, et al.
2004 ND 74 Highlight: Absent statutory or contractual authority, each party to a lawsuit bears the party's own attorney fees. |
Rydberg, et al. v. Rydberg
2004 ND 73
Highlight: Issues on appeal are not restricted to those raised in a motion to alter or amend the judgment as long as the issues were raised at the district court. |
Roth v. Hoffer
2004 ND 72 |
State v. Guscette
2004 ND 71
Highlight: A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment if, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would believe he or she is not free to leave the area. |
State v. Lura (Consolidated w/20030186-20030194)
2004 ND 70 Highlight: Drug convictions summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
Weaver v. State
2004 ND 69 Highlight: Dismissal of second petition for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
State v. Provost (cross-ref. w/20030227 & 20030229-20030231)
2004 ND 68 Highlight: Conviction for simple assault on a peace officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
State v. Stensaker
2004 ND 67 Highlight: Conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Heinz v. Heinz
2004 ND 66 Highlight: Amended divorce judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Jundt v. Jurassic Resources, et al. (cross-ref. w/20010313)
2004 ND 65
Highlight: What could have been presented in a prior appeal may not be heard on a later appeal. |
Graves v. State Board of Law Examiners
2004 ND 64 Highlight: The due process clause requires that the State Board of Law Examiners employ fair procedures, including a fair and impartial tribunal, when processing applications for admission to the bar. |
St. Benedict's Health Center v. ND Dept. of Human Services
2004 ND 63 Highlight: Administrative regulations for setting Medicaid reimbursement rates involve complex and technical matters calling for agency expertise, and the Department of Human Services' expertise in interpreting its reimbursement regulations is entitled to deference. |
Oldham v. Oldham
2004 ND 62
Highlight: A party waives an issue by not providing supporting argument. |
Gratech Company, Ltd., et al. v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2004 ND 61
Highlight: All disputes arising out of any contract entered into by the Department of Transportation for the construction or repair of highways must be submitted to arbitration. |
Nodak Mutual Ins. Co., et al. v. Ward Co. Farm Bureau, et al.
2004 ND 60
Highlight: A defendant must have standing to assert a counterclaim against a plaintiff. |
Johnson v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2004 ND 59
Highlight: The twenty-minute waiting period required before the administration of an Intoxilyzer test can begin before arrest. |
Giese v. Giese (cross-ref. w/20020168)
2004 ND 58
Highlight: Civil contempt requires a willful and inexcusable intent to violate a court order. The trial court's finding of contempt will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. |
Interest of D.V.A. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2004 ND 57
Highlight: Experts in proceedings to commit sexually dangerous individuals may rely upon information reasonably relied upon by other experts in the particular field when forming opinions regarding whether an individual is sexually dangerous. |
Ensign v. Bank of Baker
2004 ND 56 Highlight: The filing of a Uniform Commercial Code financing statement by a nonresident defendant and its two inspections of collateral in the forum state do not constitute a voluntary or purposeful effort to do business in the forum state for purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. |
Groleau v. Bjornson Oil Co., et al.
2004 ND 55
Highlight: Under premises liability law, a defendant must have had control over the property where the injury occurred in order to find the defendant owed a duty to entrants upon the property. |
Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, Director, DOT
2004 ND 54
Highlight: In an administrative agency appeal, the specifications of error must identify what matters are truly at issue with sufficient specificity to fairly apprise the agency, other parties, and the court of the particular errors claimed. |
State v. Schiele
2004 ND 53 Highlight: Conviction for luring a minor by computer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Interest of K.P. (CONFIDENTIAL) (cross-ref. w/20030175)
2004 ND 52
Highlight: The party moving for a change of venue must establish that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. |
State v. Wilson
2004 ND 51
Highlight: A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence must show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports no reasonable inference of guilt. |
State v. Pettit
2004 ND 50 Highlight: Criminal conviction for accomplice to manufacturing methamphetamine is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
Beaudoin v. South Texas Blood & Tissue Center
2004 ND 49
Highlight: Removing, preserving, and delivery of body parts involves science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons and is governed by the two-year statute of limitations for malpractice. |