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.
6151 - 6200 of 12418 results
|
State v. Morrison
2002 ND 41 Highlight: Judgment of conviction for assaulting a police officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. Aipperspach
2002 ND 40 Highlight: Denial of motion to suppress and judgment of conviction for abuse of child in violation of N.D.C.C. 14-09-22 summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Dennison v. N.D. Dept. of Human Serv.
2002 ND 39
Highlight: The State's recorded homestead statement for old age assistance benefits under N.D.R.C. 50-0707 (1943) affects the right or interest of the State in land in North Dakota under the exception to the Marketable Record Title Act in N.D.C.C. 47-19.1-11(2). |
|
Gruebele, et al. v. Geringer
2002 ND 38 Highlight: A claimant's action to quiet title based on adverse possession will fail when the claimant is unable to prove hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession for the statutorily required time. |
|
Kelly v. Kelly
2002 ND 37
Highlight: An order changing custody is a finding of fact, which will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. |
|
State v. Hirschkorn
2002 ND 36
Highlight: Because of the importance of an accused's confrontation rights, the safeguards built into N.D.R.Ev. 803(24), allowing admission in evidence of a child's hearsay statements about sexual abuse, must be strictly observed. |
|
Zeller v. Zeller
2002 ND 35
Highlight: When the relevant factors for consideration in determining a motion to change the residence of a child to another state weigh in favor of the custodial parent's request to relocate the child, the trial court's denial of the motion is reversible error. |
|
City of Jamestown v. Jerome
2002 ND 34
Highlight: A police officer is not fulfilling a community caretaking function when approaching a person under circumstances where it is obvious the person is neither in need of nor desires assistance. |
|
Estate of Howser
2002 ND 33
Highlight: Whether undue influence exists is a question of fact. |
|
Bertsch, et al. v. Duemeland, et al. (cross-ref. w/20040055)
2002 ND 32
Highlight: Whether a communication that is capable of a defamatory meaning is understood by the recipient as defamatory is ordinarily a question of fact. |
|
City of Devils Lake v. Lawrence
2002 ND 31 Highlight: An officer's reasonable and articulable suspicion that an individual has committed the offense of disorderly conduct is sufficient to justify a temporary detention of that individual for investigative purposes. |
|
Olson v. Olson
2002 ND 30 |
|
Knutson v. Knutson
2002 ND 29
Highlight: In considering whether a settlement agreement between divorcing parties should be enforced, the trial court should inquire: (1) whether the agreement is free from mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; and (2) whether the agreement is unconscionable. |
|
Hughes v. State, et al. (Con. w/20010189 & 20010190)
2002 ND 28
Highlight: Issues raised in the district court but not briefed on appeal are waived. |
|
Red Paint v. State
2002 ND 27
Highlight: A post-conviction relief claim of disclosure of privileged communications is barred by res judicata if it was fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding. |
|
City of Fargo v. Steffan (Consolidated w/20010176)
2002 ND 26
Highlight: The arrest of a person in a public place for a public offense committed in the officer's presence is neither a violation of the United States' nor North Dakota's Constitution. |
|
Grosinger v. M.B.K. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2002 ND 25 Highlight: The phrase "likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct," used for commitment of sexually dangerous persons, means the person's propensity towards sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a threat to others. |
|
State v. Roberson
2002 ND 24 Highlight: While a defendant's disruptive conduct in court may, in some instances, be sufficient grounds to require a competency hearing, not all disruptive defendants are incompetent to stand trial. Rather, the conduct may be contempt of court. |
|
Buchholz v. ND Department of Transportation
2002 ND 23 Highlight: A test operator scrupulously complies with the State Toxicologist's approved method to conduct a breath test if the test operator observes that the subject had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke in the twenty minutes prior to the collection of a breath sample. |
|
Ghorbanni v. ND Council on the Arts, et al.
2002 ND 22
Highlight: Presenting a claim letter to an assistant attorney general does not satisfy N.D.C.C. 32-12.2-04(1), which requires that notice of a claim against the State be presented to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. |
|
Piatz v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2002 ND 20 Highlight: Judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Department of Transportation suspending driver's license for driving under the influence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). |
|
State v. Guy
2002 ND 19 Highlight: Conviction of gross sexual imposition, burglary, robbery, and felonious restraint is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
|
Burke v. State
2002 ND 18 Highlight: Judgment denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (2). |
|
State v. Ringsrud
2002 ND 17 Highlight: Judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (3). |
|
State v. Randall
2002 ND 16
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Ev. 609 (a)(i), the burden is on the State to point to a danger of prejudice that substantially outweighs the probative value of prior convictions offered by a defendant in a criminal case to impeach a witness for the State. |
|
Judicial Conduct Commission v. Tessmann
2002 ND 15 Highlight: Former municipal judge censured for violation of N.D. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2, and prohibited from serving as a judge. |
|
State v. Perreault
2002 ND 14
Highlight: A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the information, but does not serve as a device for summary trial of the evidence. |
|
Bender v. Aviko USA L.L.C.
2002 ND 13 Highlight: In opposing a summary judgment motion, a party may not simply rely on unsupported and conclusory allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must, instead, set forth specific facts illustrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial. |
|
Judicial Vacancy in the Northwest District
2002 ND 12 Highlight: Judgeship ordered retained in Minot. |
|
State v. BlackCloud
2002 ND 11 Highlight: Trial court's order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
St. Claire v. State
2002 ND 10 Highlight: A trial court may summarily dismiss an application for post-conviction relief if there is no genuine issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Crary
2002 ND 9 Highlight: A lawyer may not draft a will that includes a substantial testamentary gift to the lawyer or the lawyer's parent, child, sibling, or spouse, unless the client is related to the beneficiary. Disbarment orderd. |
|
City of Fargo v. Tipler
2002 ND 8 Highlight: Juries do not have a right to decide a case contrary to law or fact, but instead, must accept the law from the trial court and apply the law to the facts. |
|
Interest of J.S. (CONFIDENTIAL) (see Docket Memo)
2002 ND 7
Highlight: Before a court may order the extension of a continuing-treatment order it must find the patient is mentally ill, and there is a reasonable expectation that, if not treated, there exists a serious risk of harm to the patient, others, or property. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Swanson (CON. W/20010161)(CROSS-REF W/990357-990358)
2002 ND 6 Highlight: Disbarment is an appropriate sanction when an attorney violates numerous rules of professional conduct involving a lack of diligence, and the attorney has a prior disciplinary history involving similar conduct. |
|
State v. Palmer (CONSOLIDATED W/20010124,20010125,& 20010126)
2002 ND 5
Highlight: To establish a failure to comply with the statutory process for drawing a jury, the complaining party must provide a factual basis showing the process was prejudicial, actually excluded, systematically excluded, or statistically excluded a fair cross section of the population. |
|
State v. Weaver
2002 ND 4
Highlight: In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and the appellate court determines only whether there is evidence which could have allowed the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction. |
|
State v. Marshall (Consolidated w/20010253)
2002 ND 3 Highlight: Denials of N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion for correction of sentence and N.D.R.Crim.P. 36 motion for correction of a clerical mistake in sentence are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1). |
|
Terry v. Terry
2002 ND 2
Highlight: A party seeking to set aside a judgment based upon a stipulation must show that, under the law of contracts, there is justification for setting aside the stipulation. |
|
Jaskoviak v. Gruver, et al.
2002 ND 1
Highlight: Evidence submitted with a motion for reconsideration after summary judgment has been granted is untimely. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Boulger
2001 ND 210 Highlight: A lawyer commits an ethical violation when the lawyer drafts a will for an unrelated client giving the lawyer a contingent bequest of a substantial gift. |
|
Consolidated Telephone v. Western Wireless Corporation, et al.
2001 ND 209
Highlight: Unless the Federal Communications Commission's rulings and regulations have been appropriately challenged in the proper federal forum, a state court is not at liberty to review the FCC's statutory interpretation even if its soundness is doubted, and the state court must apply the rulings and regulations as written. |
|
Dimond v. State Board of Higher Education (Consolidated w/20010155)
2001 ND 208 Highlight: A breach of contract action against the State is governed by the three-year statute of limitations in N.D.C.C. 28-01-22.1. |
|
Gepner, et al. v. Fujicolor Processing, Inc., et al.
2001 ND 207
Highlight: N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is to be liberally construed and applied, and trial courts should be more lenient in granting motions to vacate default judgments than in vacating judgments in cases which have been tried on their merits. |
|
Belgarde, et al. v. Askim, et al.
2001 ND 206 Highlight: Before dismissing a cause of action to sanction a party for destruction of evidence, the trial court must consider the culpability of the party against whom sanctions are being imposed, the prejudice to the party moving for sanctions, and the availability of less severe alternative sanctions. |
|
Interest of M.C.H. (CONFIDENTIAL) (CROSS-REF. W/20010132)
2001 ND 205 Highlight: Juveniles between the ages of seven and fourteen have no common law right to a presumption of incapacity to commit a crime, because the criminal capacity of children between the ages of seven and fourteen has been declared by statute. |
|
City of Fargo v. Roberson (see Docket Memo)
2001 ND 204 Highlight: The Supreme Court will not consider questions that were not presented to the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal. |
|
Interest of D.P. (Confidential)
2001 ND 203 Highlight: For hospitalization in a mental health case, the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that alternative treatment is not adequate or hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative. |
|
State v. Baumgartner
2001 ND 202
Highlight: One cannot be an accomplice without having the requisite criminal intent for the underlying offense, even if he or she is a co-conspirator. |
|
State v. Barth (Consolidated w/20010110)
2001 ND 201
Highlight: A trial court has broad discretion in selecting a method to impanel a jury, if it permits the defendant to exercise peremptory challenges without embarrassment and does not intimidate him from exercising them. |