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.
7251 - 7300 of 12446 results
|
Wojahn v. Levi
861 N.W.2d 173 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending driving privileges is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Beylund v. Levi
859 N.W.2d 403 Highlight: The implied consent laws do not violate the Fourth Amendment, under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. |
|
State v. Timm
881 N.W.2d 256 Highlight: DUI conviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Mann
876 N.W.2d 710
Highlight: North Dakota's criminal refusal statute is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment and North Dakota Constitution article I, section 8. |
|
State v. Kordonowy
867 N.W.2d 690
Highlight: The implied consent statute criminalizing refusal to consent to chemical testing is not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment or N.D. Constitution article I, section 8, and it is not unconstitutionally vague. |
|
State v. Baxter
863 N.W.2d 208 |
|
State v. Harns
861 N.W.2d 173 Highlight: Driving under the influence conviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Washburn
861 N.W.2d 173 Highlight: An order dismissing a criminal prosecution for refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b). |
|
State v. Beylund
861 N.W.2d 172 Highlight: Conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
State v. Birchfield
858 N.W.2d 302 Highlight: The implied consent statute criminalizing refusal to consent to a chemical test is not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment or North Dakota Constitution. art. I, sec. 8. |
|
State v. Williams
873 N.W.2d 13 Highlight: The district court has discretion in deciding whether to grant a request for a transcript, and the court abuses its discretion by refusing the request if a particularized need, necessity, or justification for its preparation and use is shown. |
|
Interest of J.A.H. (Consolidated w/20140146)
855 N.W.2d 394 Highlight: When a juvenile court provides insufficient findings to review, jurisdiction may be retained under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3) and the case remanded with instructions that the juvenile court make expedited findings of fact. |
|
Nemec v. Disciplinary Board
799 N.W.2d 370 Highlight: Lawyer reinstatement ordered. |
|
State v. Juntunen
845 N.W.2d 325 Highlight: A decision cannot be properly reviewed on appeal if the district court does not provide an adequate explanation of the basis for its decision. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Howe
842 N.W.2d 646 Highlight: Interim suspension vacated. |
|
Phillips v. State
841 N.W.2d 731
Highlight: A separate appeal from an order denying the transcript of a post-conviction relief hearing is unnecessary when an appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief is already pending. |
|
Judicial Redistricting (consol. w/ 20130221)
833 N.W.2d 543 Highlight: Counties moved from South Central to Southeast Judicial District and Northwest Judicial District divided into two districts, effective January 1, 2014. |
|
Interest of S.R.B. (Confidential)
830 N.W.2d 565
Highlight: In an expedited appeal taken from an order for hospitalization and treatment, a trial court must make findings of fact specially under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) as to whether the respondent is a person requiring treatment and hospitalization is the least restrictive treatment. |
|
Palmer v. State (consol.w/20110346-20110348)(cross-ref.w/20010123-20010126)
816 N.W.2d 807 Highlight: A decision cannot be properly reviewed on appeal if the district court does not provide an adequate explanation of its rationale for its decision. |
|
State v. Gress
803 N.W.2d 607 Highlight: A decision cannot be properly reviewed on appeal if the district court does not provide an adequate explanation of the basis for its decision. |
|
Estate of Fisk
780 N.W.2d 697
Highlight: The review of fees paid or taken by a personal representative is left to the sound discretion of the district court. |
|
Miller v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
684 N.W.2d 641
Highlight: Ex parte communications are those that are without notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Vela
699 N.W.2d 839 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Wilkes
673 N.W.2d 614 Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered. |
|
Howes v. Kelly Services, Inc.
649 N.W.2d 218
Highlight: In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must accept the truth of the evidence presented by the non-moving party and the truth of all reasonable inferences from that evidence which supports the verdict. |
|
Petition to Change Resident Chambers from Watford City to Minot
643 N.W.2d 1 Highlight: Judgeship transferred from Watford City to Minot. |
|
Mau, et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
610 N.W.2d 761 |
|
Interest of J.S. (CONFIDENTIAL-M.H.)
621 N.W.2d 582
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. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Keller
613 N.W.2d 510 Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Bard
430 N.W.2d 062 |
|
State v. Hanson
558 N.W.2d 611 |
|
Scott v. ND Dept. of Transportation
557 N.W.2d 385 |
|
Goodleft (Myrtle) v. Gullickson (Philip)
556 N.W.2d 303 |
|
State v. Asbridge
555 N.W.2d 571 |
|
American Insurance Co. v. Midwest Motor Express
554 N.W.2d 182 |
|
Diocese of Bismarck Trust, et al. v. Ramada Inc., et al. (Con. w/950380)
553 N.W.2d 760 |
|
Bangen, et al. v. Bartelson, et al.
553 N.W.2d 754 |
|
Hendrickson v. Hendrickson
553 N.W.2d 215 |
|
Swanson v. ND Workers Comp., et al.
553 N.W.2d 209 |
|
Earthworks, Inc. v. Sehn (Kevin)
553 N.W.2d 490 |
|
Grinaker v. Grinaker (Cross reference w/950354)
553 N.W.2d 204 |
|
Grinaker v. Grinaker, et al. (Cross Ref. w/960035 - see memo)
553 N.W.2d 200 |
|
Kristianson v. Flying J Oil & Gas, Inc.
553 N.W.2d 186 |
|
Kinney Shoe Corp. v. State ex rel. Hanson
552 N.W.2d 788 |
|
Richmond v. Nodland, et al.
552 N.W.2d 586 |
|
State v. Thompson
552 N.W.2d 386 |
|
Fahlsing v. Teters, et al.
552 N.W.2d 087 |
|
City of Jamestown v. Leevers Supermarkets, et al. (Consolidated w/950366)
552 N.W.2d 365 |
|
State v. Olson
552 N.W.2d 362 |
|
State v. Steinmetz
552 N.W.2d 358 |