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.
12301 - 12400 of 12418 results
|
State v. Miller
146 N.W.2d 159 |
|
Collette, et al. v. Matejcek, et al.
146 N.W.2d 156 |
|
Azar v. Azar
146 N.W.2d 148 |
|
Bismarck Tribune v. Omdahl
147 N.W.2d 903 |
|
Sprenger v. Sprenger
146 N.W.2d 036 |
|
Haga v. Cook
145 N.W.2d 888 |
|
Jasper v. Freitag
145 N.W.2d 879 |
|
Matter of Braun
145 N.W.2d 482 |
|
Linington v. McLean County
146 N.W.2d 045 |
|
Willert v. Nielson
146 N.W.2d 026 |
|
Knox v. Krueger
145 N.W.2d 904 |
|
Fraase v. Murray
145 N.W.2d 899 |
|
Monson v. Nelson
145 N.W.2d 892 |
|
Schrank v. Meade
145 N.W.2d 514 |
|
Degenstein v. Ehrman
145 N.W.2d 493 |
|
United Accounts, Inc. v. Lantz
145 N.W.2d 488 |
|
State v. Higgins
145 N.W.2d 478 |
|
Haugen v. Mid-State Aviation, Inc.
144 N.W.2d 692 |
|
Erhardt v. Gold Seal Chinchillas
144 N.W.2d 744 |
|
City of Bismarck v. Kleinschmidt
145 N.W.2d 333 |
|
State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc.
144 N.W.2d 749 |
|
Schmidt v. Frank
144 N.W.2d 572 |
|
Smith v. Anderson
144 N.W.2d 530 |
|
Ternes v. Farmers Union
144 N.W.2d 386 |
|
Glover v. Paul
144 N.W.2d 382 |
|
Erling, et al. v. Haman, et al.
144 N.W.2d 215 |
|
Jennings v. O'Callaghan
143 N.W.2d 654 |
|
Heggen v. Marentette
144 N.W.2d 218 |
|
In re Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
144 N.W.2d 082 |
|
Nordenstrom v. Swedberg
143 N.W.2d 848 |
|
Olsen v. M.R. Larsen Estate
143 N.W.2d 656 |
|
Thomas v. City of Devils Lake
143 N.W.2d 718 |
|
O'Connell v. Hjelle
143 N.W.2d 251 |
|
First National Bank v. O'Callaghan
143 N.W.2d 104 |
|
Prince v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
143 N.W.2d 708 |
|
Walker v. Weilenman
143 N.W.2d 689 |
|
Kack v. Kack
142 N.W.2d 754 |
|
Morton Co. Bd. of Park Commissioners v. Wetsch
142 N.W.2d 751 |
|
Heasley v. Glinz
142 N.W.2d 606 |
|
City of Minot v. General Drivers & Helpers Union
142 N.W.2d 612 |
|
Blanton v. Blanton
142 N.W.2d 608 |
|
Glinz v. Heasley
142 N.W.2d 603 |
|
Waltman v. Austin
142 N.W.2d 517 |
|
State v. Wilson
142 N.W.2d 106 |
|
C.I.T. Corp. v. Hetland
143 N.W.2d 094 |
|
Pierce County Abstract v. Petterson
142 N.W.2d 620 |
|
Indianhead Truck Line v. Thompson
142 N.W.2d 138 |
|
Great Lakes Pipe Line Co. v. City of Grand Forks
142 N.W.2d 126 |
|
State v. Johnson
142 N.W.2d 110 |
|
State Auto & Cas. Underwriters v. Skjonsby
142 N.W.2d 098 |
|
Adams v. Little Missouri Minerals Ass'n
143 N.W.2d 659 |
|
Bertsch v. Zahn
141 N.W.2d 792 |
|
Writh v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
141 N.W.2d 790 |
|
Beck v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
141 N.W.2d 784 |
|
Putnam v. Dickinson
142 N.W.2d 111 |
|
United Accounts v. Palmer
141 N.W.2d 472 |
|
Nord v. Guy
141 N.W.2d 395 |
|
Hook v. Crary
142 N.W.2d 140 |
|
Mikkelson v. Risovi
141 N.W.2d 150 |
|
Johnson v. Davis
140 N.W.2d 703 |
|
Schmidt v. Frank
140 N.W.2d 588 |
|
Heid v. Shafer
140 N.W.2d 584 |
|
Cokins v. Frandsen
141 N.W.2d 796 |
|
Sittner v. Mistelski
140 N.W.2d 360 |
|
Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc.
140 N.W.2d 349 |
|
Julson v. Loyal Order of Moose
140 N.W.2d 039 |
|
Quinn Dist. Co. v. North Hill Bowl, Inc., et al.
139 N.W.2d 860 |
|
Kuntz v. N.D. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
139 N.W.2d 525 |
|
Parceluk v. Knudtson
139 N.W.2d 864 |
|
Fischer v. Fischer
139 N.W.2d 845 |
|
Hoffman v. Berry
139 N.W.2d 529 |
|
Manock v. Donley
139 N.W.2d 391 |
|
Fredereickson v. Burleigh County, et al.
139 N.W.2d 250 |
|
City of Grand Forks v. Grand Forks County
139 N.W.2d 242 |
|
Bankers v. Bankers
139 N.W.2d 143 |
|
State v. Johnson
139 N.W.2d 157 |
|
Bender v. N.D. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
139 N.W.2d 150 |
|
Berry v. Heinz
139 N.W.2d 145 |
|
Wilson v. City of Fargo
141 N.W.2d 727 |
|
Newman v. Hjelle, et al.
133 N.W.2d 549 |
|
Sperle v. Weigel
130 N.W.2d 315 |
|
Kessler v. Thompson
075 N.W.2d 172 |
|
Haman v. McHenry County, et al.
072 N.W.2d 630 |
|
State v. Krebs
|
|
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. |
|
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, et al. v. State, et al.
2007 ND App2
Highlight: A judge may not be held liable for any judicial act. |
|
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. |
|
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). |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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). |
|
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. |
|
Lang v. Binstock
2001 ND App1 |