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.
6351 - 6400 of 12418 results
|
State v. Knudson
2001 ND 49 Highlight: The trial court's denial of a motion to suppress and its judgment of conviction for driving under suspension are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(7). |
|
Fetch v. Quam, et al. (cross ref. 940257)
2001 ND 48 Highlight: Summary judgment is appropriately granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact that an insurer acted in bad faith by intervening in a lawsuit to defend its own interests against its insured under an uninsured motorist provision in the insurance policy or by investigating and refusing to settle a claim by its insured which is fairly debatable as to liability. |
|
Lukenbill, et al. v. Fettig
2001 ND 47
Highlight: In setting a child support obligation, the district court must clearly set forth how it arrived at the amount of the obligor's income and level of support. |
|
Hall Family Living Trust v. Mutual Service Life Ins. Co.
2001 ND 46
Highlight: An application for insurance stating the policy does not take effect until delivery creates no insurance contract until the policy is delivered. |
|
Lohstreter v. Lohstreter (cross-ref. w/970130)
2001 ND 45
Highlight: When the circumstances are appropriate, rehabilitative spousal support may continue after the remarriage of the disadvantaged spouse. |
|
State v. Berger
2001 ND 44
Highlight: Absent actual prejudice, violation of the statutory right to consult with counsel before submitting to an Intoxilyzer test is properly challenged by a motion to suppress the results of the test, rather than a motion to dismiss the charge. |
|
Tibor v. Tibor (Cross-reference w/970372 & 990020)
2001 ND 43
Highlight: The presumptively correct child support guidelines are rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence establishing a noncustodial parent's reduced ability to provide support due to visitation travel expenses and a downward deviation from the guidelines is in the best interests of the children. Until the guidelines define a "reduced ability to pay," an affidavit from the noncustodial parent testifying as to net income and anticipated travel expenses is sufficient rebuttal evidence. A trial court may use its discretion to determine whether visitation travel expenses may be deducted directly from the child support payments or from the noncustodial parent's gross monthly income to calculate net income for the purpose of determining the appropriate child support obligation, as the guidelines do not provide a method for calculating the deviation. |
|
State v. Keeney
2001 ND 42 Highlight: Conviction for delivery of a controlled substance is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Kopp v. Kopp
2001 ND 41 Highlight: Rule 60(b)(vi), N.D.R.Civ.P., authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to provide relief from a judgment when the movant demonstrates it would be manifestly unjust to enforce the judgment. |
|
Anderson v. Jacobson
2001 ND 40
Highlight: A jury special verdict will be set aside on appeal only if it is perverse and contrary to the evidence. |
|
Runge v. Runge
2001 ND 39 Highlight: Judgment valuing and distributing marital property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Snyder v. ND Workers Comp. Bureau
2001 ND 38
Highlight: Unless otherwise provided, statutes in effect on the date of an injury govern workers compensation benefits. |
|
Interest of C.H., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2001 ND 37 Highlight: The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings concerning unruly children. The custodian has the right to determine the nature of the care, placement, and treatment of the child, except for any limits the court may impose. The underlying obligation of the juvenile court under the Uniform Juvenile Court Act is to protect the welfare of the children. |
|
Schroeder, et al. v. Buchholz, et al.
2001 ND 36
Highlight: The existence of a constructive trust must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. To establish a constructive trust, a party must prove the existence of both a confidential relationship and unjust enrichment. |
|
Wetzel v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2001 ND 35
Highlight: Whether a person has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney is a mixed question of law and fact. |
|
Peek v. Berning
2001 ND 34 Highlight: An award of rotating physical custody is only appropriate after finding the parents can communicate and cooperate sufficiently to ensure the child's best interests would not be jeopardized by an alternating custody schedule. |
|
K.L.G v. S.L.N. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2001 ND 33
Highlight: Upon request of the noncustodial parent, a court shall grant visitation that will enable the child and the noncustodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship beneficial to the child. |
|
Aalund v. ND Workers Comp.
2001 ND 32
Highlight: The failure to give the N.D.C.C. 28-32-11 perjury admonition in a discovery deposition does not preclude the admission of the deposition at an administrative hearing. |
|
Northrop v. Northrop
2001 ND 31 Highlight: A trial court must articulate a rationale for a substantial disparity in the distribution of the marital estate. |
|
Moszer, et al. v. Witt (CONSOLIDATED w/20000203)
2001 ND 30
Highlight: A jury verdict which assesses fault to a person after finding the person's negligence was not a proximate cause is a clearly inconsistent and perverse verdict. |
|
Vogel v. Braun, et al.
2001 ND 29
Highlight: A prison inmate may access funds in his release aid account if authorized by the warden. |
|
Greenwood v. Paracelsus Health Care, et al.
2001 ND 28
Highlight: Section 28-01-46, N.D.C.C., which requires an affidavit of an expert to support an allegation of medical malpractice, does not apply once the trial has begun. |
|
Strutz v. State
2001 ND 27 Highlight: A trial court's findings of fact in a post-conviction relief proceeding will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. |
|
Carry Mocassin, et al. v. State Farm
2001 ND 26 Highlight: Summary judgment dismissing claims for deceit, negligent misrepresentation, bad faith, and infliction of emotional distress is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
|
Wilson v. State (cross-reference w/990193)
2001 ND 24 Highlight: Appeal from denial of post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Weathers, et al. v. Peters, et al.
2001 ND 23 Highlight: Denial of Motion to Exclude Evidence of results of a Blood Alcohol Concentration test and Judgment on Jury Verdict dismissing claims on the merits and with prejudice are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Fredericks v. American Federal Bank
2001 ND 22 Highlight: Judgment awarding employee severance benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Wanstrom v. ND Workers Comp. Bureau, et al. (cross-reference w/990306)
2001 ND 21 Highlight: The presumption that a firefighter's lung disease was suffered in the line of duty is based on a legislatively adopted premise that a firefighter's occupational exposure to smoke causes lung disease, and the presumption cannot be rebutted by expert medical opinion rejecting that underlying premise. |
|
Kautzman, et al. v. McDonald, et al.
2001 ND 20
Highlight: Absent the timely filing of a notice of claim against the state or one of its employees, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a lawsuit against them. |
|
Schmitz v. Schmitz (cross-ref. w/980056)
2001 ND 19 Highlight: Spousal support payments may be modified only upon a showing of a material change in circumstances justifying the modification. |
|
Barrera v. State (cross-ref. w/970010 & 960021)
2001 ND 18 Highlight: It is a misuse of process to raise issues on subsequent post-conviction applications that could have been raised in the initial post-conviction application. |
|
Des Lacs Valley Land Corp. v. Herzig, et al.
2001 ND 17
Highlight: In the absence of fraud, mistake, or accident, an unambiguous written deed cannot be altered by parol evidence. |
|
Eckes v. Richland Co. Social Service Board, et al.
2001 ND 16 Highlight: The unambiguous settlor's intent determines the nature of the trust. |
|
Owens v. State (CONSOLIDATED W/20000129) (CROSS-REF SEE DOCKET MEMO)
2001 ND 15 Highlight: Post-conviction relief is denied for misuse of process when a petitioner presents issues the petitioner inexcusably failed to raise in a previous post-conviction hearing. |
|
State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Haskell, et al.
2001 ND 14
Highlight: The Supreme Court exercises its discretionary authority to issue supervisory writs on a case-by-case basis, rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases in which there is no adequate alternative remedy. |
|
Hurt v. Hurt
2001 ND 13
Highlight: Evidence of domestic violence which does not trigger the statutory presumption under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2(1)(j) remains one of the best interest factors to be considered by the court. |
|
City of Harvey v. Fettig
2001 ND 12 Highlight: The prosecutor's statement supporting an appeal from a suppression order cannot be a mere paraphrase of the statutory language, but must explain the relevance of and need for the evidence which was suppressed. |
|
Nord, et al. v. Herrman, et al.
2001 ND 11
Highlight: Any survey method that results in equitable allocation of a new shoreline in proportion to each owner's share of the original shoreline will satisfy the legal requirement of proportional allocation. |
|
Interest of J.S. (CONFIDENTIAL-M.H.)
2001 ND 10
Highlight: Expedited appeals under the mental health law are limited to the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the lower court. Because of this limited review, detailed findings are necessary. |
|
Clark v. State
2001 ND 9 Highlight: Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2355 (2000), any fact, other than prior convictions, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be found by a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
Doyle v. Sprynczynatyk
2001 ND 8 Highlight: Points on a driving record must be reduced for completion of a defensive driver course only if the points are accumulated prior to completing the course. Points accumulate when entered on the driving record, not at the date of the traffic citation or conviction. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Howe
2001 ND 7 Highlight: A lawyer's conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation generally results in suspension from the practice of law. |
|
Reiser v. Reiser
2001 ND 6
Highlight: In dividing the marital estate, fault causing deterioration of the marriage is a relevant factor under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. |
|
State v. Kelly
2001 ND 5 Highlight: Judgment of conviction for gross sexual imposition, attempted gross sexual imposition, felonious restraint, and theft summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Marschner v. Marschner
2001 ND 4
Highlight: A spouse is disadvantaged who has foregone opportunities or lost advantages as a consequence of the marriage and who has contributed during the marriage to the supporting spouse's increased earning capacity. A disadvantaged spouse is not required to deplete a property distribution in order to live. |
|
City of Fargo v. Salsman
2001 ND 3 Highlight: The trial court's judgment of conviction for a violation of Fargo Municipal Code is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Englund v. State (Consolidated w/20000251 through 20000254)
2001 ND 2 Highlight: Appeal from denial of post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Petition for Change of Designation of Judgeship No. 1
2001 ND 1 Highlight: Petition to move chambers of Judgeship No. 1 in the Southwest Judicial District from Dickinson to Bowman denied. |
|
Estate of Lutz (Cross-Ref. w/960177 & 980390)
2000 ND 226
Highlight: Whether services performed by a family member are so exceptional and extraordinary as to imply a contract to pay for those services is a question of fact. |
|
Jacobson v. ND Workers Comp. Bureau
2000 ND 225
Highlight: A willful false claim or false statement is sufficiently material for forfeiture of future benefits if it is a statement which could have misled the Bureau in a determination of the claim. |