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.
12201 - 12276 of 12276 results
|
Wucherpfennig v. Dooley, et al.
|
|
Estate of Rolczynski
|
|
Mid-America Real Estate & Investment Corporation v. Lund
|
|
Felchle, et al. v. Felchle, et al.
|
|
Eisenzimmer v. City of Balfour
|
|
Conway v. Bd. of County Comm'n. of Grand Forks County
|
|
Bergquist v. Speldrich
|
|
Brudvig v. Meester, et al.
|
|
Blocker Drilling Canada, Ltd., et al. v. Conrad
|
|
First Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Haley, et al.
|
|
Keller v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co., et al.
|
|
Lippert v. Lippert
|
|
Haugo v. Haaland, et al.
|
|
Martinson Bros., et al. v. Hjellum, et al.
|
|
Jamestown Sand & Gravel v. Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
|
|
Phoenix Assurance Co. of Canada, et al. v. Runck, et al.
|
|
Security State Bank v. Schultz, et al.
|
|
Estate of Bendickson
|
|
Disciplinary Action Against Dronen
|
|
Mitchell v. Barnes
|
|
Interest of J.K.S.
|
|
Interest of J.S. & J.T.S.
|
|
Solen Public School v. Board of Public School Education
|
|
Horejsi v. Anderson, et al.
|
|
Schwarting, et al. v. Schwarting
|
|
Erickson, et al. v. Ward, et al.
|
|
Dangerud v. Dobesh
|
|
Bridston v. Dover Corporation, et al.
|
|
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Fargo v. Graff
|
|
Interest of J.E.H. & C.L.H., Jr.
|
|
Miller v. Schwartz, et al.
|
|
Industrial Fiberglass v. Jandt
|
|
Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Wayne & Juntunen Fertilizer Co. Inc., et al.
|
|
Daley v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co.
|
|
Dodds v. State Highway Commissioner
|
|
Buzick v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner
|
|
Bergquist-Walker Real Estate, Inc. v. William Clairmont, Inc., et al.
|
|
Estate of Frandson
|
|
Peltier v. State (consolidated w/20230392)
Highlight: A district court's order on petitions is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2). |
|
Adoption of H.W.L.
Highlight: A district court order terminating parental rights and granting a petition for adoption is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Northstar Center v. Lukenbill Family Partnership, et al.
|
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 8, ECJD
Highlight: Vacancy retained at Fargo |
|
Lang v. Binstock
2001 ND App1 |
|
Riemers v. State
2007 ND App3
Highlight: Factual assertions in a brief do not raise an issue of material fact satisfying Rule 56(e) for purposes of resisting a motion for summary judgment. |
|
Riemers v. State of North Dakota, et al.
2007 ND App1
Highlight: Summary judgment is appropriate if the information available to the trial court does not establish a genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
|
Riemers, et al. v. State, et al.
2007 ND App2
Highlight: A judge may not be held liable for any judicial act. |
|
State v. Nowik
2000 ND App1
Highlight: The appellant's conviction for driving a vehicle with a suspended license is summarily affirmed by the Court of Appeals. |
|
Lang v. State, et al.
2001 ND App2
Highlight: Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits relitigation of claims or issues that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties or their privies, and which were resolved by final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction. |
|
Haugstad d/b/a HB Rentals v. Baltrusch
1998 ND App7 |
|
Severson v. Severson
1998 ND App6 |
|
Monson v. Monson
1998 ND App9 |
|
Interest of A.J.K. (CONFIDENTIAL)
1998 ND App3 |
|
State v. Berlin
1999 ND App1 |
|
Interest of S.J.F. (CONFIDENTIAL)
1998 ND App4 |
|
City of Bismarck v. Glass
1998 ND App1 |
|
McKibben, et al. v. Grigg, et al.
1998 ND App5 |
|
Industrial Commission v. Wolf (Consolidated w/980053)
1999 ND App2 |
|
Mead v. ND Dept. of Transportation
1998 ND App2 |
|
Cline v. Cline
1998 ND App11 |
|
Carver v. Miller
1998 ND App12 |
|
Wishnatsky v. Huey
1998 ND App8 |
|
State v. Roberson
1998 ND App15 |
|
Anseth v. Dupont Co.
1998 ND App10 |
|
Beck v. Job Service North Dakota
1998 ND App14 |
|
State v. Rohde (Consolidated w/980213 & 980214)
1998 ND App13 |
|
Riemers v. State
2007 ND App4
Highlight: A judgment of dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted will be affirmed by an appellate court if it cannot discern a potential for proof to support the claim. |
|
Interest of A.K., et al. (Confidential)
2005 ND App3
Highlight: The State must prove the elements for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. |
|
State v. Bernstein
2005 ND App6
Highlight: To satisfy the knowledge element of criminal trespass under N.D.C.C. 12.1-22-03(3), the State must prove that the defendant knew or had a firm belief, unaccompanied by substantial doubt, that he was not licensed or privileged to be on the property. |
|
Ernst v. Tjon
2005 ND App1 Highlight: A summary judgment dismissing a defamation and libel action is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
City of Grand Forks v. Barnum
2005 ND App4
Highlight: For a process to be a necessary part of the approved method, the State Toxicologist must expressly include it in the approved methodology and make it a part of the requirement for fair administration. |
|
Pautz v. N.B., et al. (Confidential) (cross-ref. w/20040229)
2005 ND App2 Highlight: The court summarily affirmed an order declaring a child delinquent and placing her in the custody of Division of Juvenile Services for one year. |
|
Kerzmann v. Burleigh County Social Services
2005 ND App7 Highlight: The district court's dismissal of an attempted appeal because the appeal from an administrative law judge's decision affirming an agency employment termination was not properly perfected under N.D.C.C. 28-32-42 is summarily affirmed. |
|
Gosbee v. Martinson, et al.
2005 ND App10
Highlight: Rule 54(e)(1), N.D.R.Civ.P., which provides that the trial court shall schedule a hearing when objections to costs and disbursements are filed, is mandatory and affords no discretion to the trial court to dispense with the required hearing unless it is expressly waived by the parties. |
|
State v. Smith
2005 ND App5 Highlight: The enhanced sentencing language of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01.2(2), requiring at least 90 days incarceration, is invalid and unenforceable when sentencing a defendant found guilty of a class B misdemeanor DUI under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01. |
|
Interest of K.N.H., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2005 ND App9 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating a father's parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Johnson v. State (Consolidated w/20050029)
2005 ND App8
Highlight: An application for post-conviction relief may be denied on the grounds of res judicata and misuse of process. |