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.
551 - 600 of 12280 results
|
Interest of S.B.
2024 ND 56 Highlight: A juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
State v. Nelson
2024 ND 55 Highlight: If a defendant’s crime and revocation of probation occurred after the 2021 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6), a district court may resentence the defendant up to the maximum allowed at the time of his original sentence. |
|
State v. Thornton, et al.
2024 ND 54
Highlight: We exercise our authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously on a case-by-case basis and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. Our authority to issue a supervisory writ is discretionary. We generally will not exercise our supervisory jurisdiction where the proper remedy is an appeal. |
|
Dahms v. Legacy Plumbing
2024 ND 53
Highlight: Conduct constituting a breach of contract does not create a tort for negligence, unless the defendant’s conduct also establishes a breach of an independent duty that does not arise from the contract. |
|
Whitetail Wave v. XTO Energy, et al.
2024 ND 52 |
|
Interest of Y.R.
2024 ND 51 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Happel v. State
2024 ND 50 |
|
Adoption of R.E.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2024 ND 49 Highlight: An order denying a petition for adoption is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Driver
2024 ND 48
Highlight: The scope of an opening statement rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not reverse a conviction on the ground that the opening statement was prejudicial unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion. |
|
State v. Glaum
2024 ND 47
Highlight: A district court’s order denying a defendant’s withdrawal of guilty pleas is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Petro-Hunt v. Tank, et al.
2024 ND 46
Highlight: Assignments and deeds are interpreted in the same manner as contracts, with the primary purpose to ascertain and effectuate the parties’ or grantor’s intent. |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 3, SCJD
2024 ND 45 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Washburn. |
|
Meuchel v. Red Trail Energy
2024 ND 44
Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a member’s request for certain information in a board-managed limited liability company under the applicable statute governing an LLC member’s right to information. |
|
Interest of A.P. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2024 ND 43 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is reversed. The court’s findings on termination are clearly erroneous because the findings are not supported by evidence in the record. The juvenile court abused its discretion by relying on affidavits in the file that were not received into evidence. |
|
State v. Henderson
2024 ND 42 |
|
Interest of R.K.
2024 ND 41 |
|
Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co.
2024 ND 40 |
|
State v. Wiese
2024 ND 39 |
|
Archambault v. State
2024 ND 38
Highlight: To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Strickland test, the applicant must show: (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. |
|
Weber v. NDDOT
2024 ND 37 Highlight: A driver arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol was provided a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel when he was permitted to use his cellphone to call a third party to help contact an attorney and made no additional requests or attempts to contact counsel. |
|
Interest of J.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/ 20230378)
2024 ND 36 Highlight: A juvenile court errs when it relies on facts which are outside of the evidentiary record when exercising its discretion to terminate parental rights. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Pilch
2024 ND 35 Highlight: Lawyer disbarred. |
|
Garaas, et al. v. Petro-Hunt
2024 ND 34
Highlight: A dismissal without prejudice is appealable if the judgment has the practical effect of terminating litigation in the plaintiffs’ chosen forum. |
|
State v. Rinde
2024 ND 33 |
|
NDIC v. Gould, et al.
2024 ND 32
Highlight: Lien priority usually is based on its date of perfection. |
|
Nelson v. Nelson, et al.
2024 ND 31
Highlight: A district court must weigh all four Stout-Hawkinson factors when determining whether a moving parent can relocate to a different state with the children. |
|
Williams v. Vraa, et al.
2024 ND 30
Highlight: A court’s determination that a petitioner did not establish a prima facie case to support an award of nonparent visitation is reviewed de novo. |
|
State v. Fischer
2024 ND 29
Highlight: A district court can accept a guilty plea without accepting a plea agreement. When considering a plea agreement, the court can reject a guilty plea until it accepts the plea agreement or sentences the defendant. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
2024 ND 28 Highlight: Lawyer suspended and placed on two-year suspension with conditions. |
|
Keller v. Keller, et al.
2024 ND 27
Highlight: A district court’s finding of contempt will only be overturned if the court abused its discretion. |
|
WSI v. Kringlie, et al.
2024 ND 26
Highlight: Under the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, courts exercise limited appellate review of administrative agency decisions. |
|
Don's Garden Center, et al. v. The Garden District, et al.
2024 ND 25 |
|
Sherwood v. Sherwood
2024 ND 24 |
|
Estate of Heath
2024 ND 23 |
|
Friends of the Rail Bridge, et al. v. N.D. Dep't of Water Resources, et al.
2024 ND 22 |
|
Mahad v. WSI, et al.
2024 ND 21
Highlight: The time to appeal a final administrative order begins when notice of the final order is mailed. |
|
Lyons v. State
2024 ND 19
Highlight: The requirements of the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1, must be satisfied before an applicant can obtain relief under the Act. |
|
State v. Good Bear
2024 ND 18
Highlight: In determining if an out-of-court statement is admissible, the district court must first determine if the statement qualifies as hearsay under the rules of evidence. If not hearsay, then the statement is admissible; if it is hearsay, the court must then determine if it qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule as outlined in the N.D.R.Ev. 803 and N.D.R.Ev. 804. |
|
Landis v. State
2024 ND 17
Highlight: This Court only decides those issues which are thoroughly briefed and argued, and a party waives an issue by not providing adequate supporting argument. |
|
LAWC Holdings v. Vincent Watford
2024 ND 16
Highlight: Whether a party has breached a contract is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. |
|
Pinks, et al. v. Kelsch, et al.
2024 ND 15 Highlight: A two-pronged test is used when determining whether an interlocutory order is appealable. First, the order appealed from must meet one of the statutory criteria of appealability set forth in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02. If it does, then Rule 54(b) under the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure must be complied with. An appeal will not be considered in a multi-claim or multi-party case which disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties unless the district court has first independently assessed the case and determined that a Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate. |
|
Swanson v. State
2024 ND 14 Highlight: An order denying a petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Interest of R.S.
2024 ND 13 |
|
Stancel v. Stancel, et al.
2024 ND 12 Highlight: A district court divorce judgment and order denying cross motions for contempt are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Plaisimond v. State
2024 ND 11 Highlight: A district court’s order for denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Estate of Lindberg
2024 ND 10
Highlight: Before we consider the merits of an appeal, we must first confirm we have jurisdiction. A motion filed under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) and 60(b)(6) within 28 days of the notice of entry of judgment or order tolls the time to appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3)(A)(iv) and (vi). |
|
Interest of J.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/ 20230378)
2024 ND 9 Highlight: A juvenile court errs when it relies on facts which are outside of the evidentiary record when exercising its discretion to terminate parental rights. |
|
Hoover v. NDDOT
2024 ND 8 Highlight: An administrative agency does not afford a petitioner a fair hearing when the agency receives exhibits into evidence without first providing the petitioner the opportunity to examine them. |
|
State v. Williamson
2024 ND 7 |
|
State v. Salou
2024 ND 6
Highlight: Rule 28(b)(7)(B), N.D.R.App.P., requires an appellant’s brief to have a statement of the applicable standard of review and a citation to the record showing that the issue was preserved for review, or a statement of grounds for seeking review of an issue that was not preserved. A preserved evidentiary issue is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, and an unpreserved evidentiary issue is reviewed for obvious error. |