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.
1401 - 1500 of 12426 results
|
Scott v. Scott
2021 ND 128 Highlight: A party moving to modify joint residential responsibility more than two years after the initial order establishing residential responsibility bears the burden of showing a material change in circumstances has occurred. A court’s decision on whether a material change has occurred is a finding of fact which will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. A court is not required to analyze the best interest factors if a material change is not shown. |
|
City of Lincoln v. McCorkell
2021 ND 127 Highlight: A criminal judgment for driving under suspension is summarily affirmed under N.D R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Hussiene v. NDDOT
2021 ND 126
Highlight: Evidence supported a hearing officer’s finding that a highway patrol trooper had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop a motorist for failure to stop at a red light. |
|
State v. Crites
2021 ND 125 Highlight: A district court’s criminal judgment following a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
|
Eubanks v. Fisketjon, et al.
2021 ND 124
Highlight: The district court erred when it included half of an obligor and his roommate’s share of rent owed to a landlord as the obligor’s income for purposes of calculating child support. |
|
City of Lincoln v. Schuler
2021 ND 123
Highlight: This Court will affirm a district court decision regarding a motion to suppress if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the district court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. |
|
Dietzler v. Dietzler
2021 ND 122 Highlight: The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed as not clearly erroneous under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
WSI v. Kemmet
2021 ND 121 Highlight: A district court’s summary judgment and denial of post-judgment motion are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (4), and (6). |
|
State v. Eggleston
2021 ND 120 Highlight: Constitutional issues not appropriately raised in the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. |
|
State v. Jensen
2021 ND 119
Highlight: When a defendant has previously filed an application for post-conviction relief, a subsequent motion filed under the Rules of Criminal Procedure will be treated as an application for post-conviction relief when the motion seeks to evade the boundaries of post-conviction proceedings. |
|
State v. Lelm
2021 ND 118
Highlight: The State bears the burden to prove a warrantless search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. |
|
Decker v. WSI
2021 ND 117 Highlight: Statutory requirements for filing an appeal from an administrative agency decision are jurisdictional, and the appellant must satisfy the statutory requirements for the district court to acquire subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. |
|
State v. Van Der Heever
2021 ND 116
Highlight: Information from a tip may provide the factual basis for an investigative stop. In evaluating whether the factual basis for a stop meets the legal standard of reasonable and articulable suspicion, we consider the totality of the circumstances. |
|
Interest of K.C. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated with 20210123 & 20210124)
2021 ND 115 Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of K.C. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated with 20210123 & 20210124)
2021 ND 115 |
|
Thompson v. State
2021 ND 114 Highlight: A district court’s dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Interest of C.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/ 20210133)
2021 ND 113 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of C.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/ 20210133)
2021 ND 113 |
|
State v. Gedrose
2021 ND 111
Highlight: A statute enjoys a presumption of constitutionality unless it is clearly shown that it contravenes the state or federal constitution. |
|
Abdi v. State
2021 ND 110 Highlight: An application for post-conviction relief alleging constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky was properly denied where the applicant failed to meet his burden to show he pleaded guilty to an offense mandating his removal and he was advised he may be deported. An applicant who argues they did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily, enter their plea alleging they received ineffective assistance of counsel cannot establish a manifest injustice will result if they cannot withdraw their plea where they did not establish they received ineffective assistance of counsel. |
|
State v. Schweitzer
2021 ND 109
Highlight: To claim a violation of his or her due process rights, a defendant must show the State acted in bad faith when it failed to preserve evidence. |
|
Johnshoy v. Johnshoy
2021 ND 108
Highlight: A prima facie case consists of factual allegations sufficient to support a finding of a material change in circumstances and that a change is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. A “material change” is an important new fact that was unknown at the time of the prior custody decision. To establish a prima facie case that modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the children requires more than the improved circumstances of the party moving to modify primary residential responsibility. |
|
Comes v. State
2021 ND 107 Highlight: The statutory remedy of post-conviction relief pursuant to N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 is not available to provide relief for disciplinary measures, custodial treatment, or other violations of civil rights of a convicted person occurring after the imposition of sentence. |
|
Interest of K.B. (CONFIDENTIAL) (CONSOLIDATED W/20210110)
2021 ND 106
Highlight: In addition to state law requirements for parental termination, the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912, must be met in cases involving an Indian child as defined by the Act. |
|
Interest of K.B. (CONFIDENTIAL) (CONSOLIDATED W/20210110)
2021 ND 106 |
|
Pennington, et al. v. Continental Resources
2021 ND 105
Highlight: Under the law of the case doctrine, a party cannot in a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal. |
|
Guardianship and Conservatorship of S.M.H.
2021 ND 104
Highlight: Only judgments and decrees which constitute a final judgment of the rights of the parties and certain orders enumerated by statute are appealable. |
|
State v. Black
2021 ND 103
Highlight: When reviewing a district court’s finding of exigent circumstances, the findings of fact are reviewed giving due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by judges and law enforcement. A de novo review is applied to the ultimate determination of whether the facts constitute exigent circumstances. |
|
State v. Coleman
2021 ND 102 Highlight: An order deferring imposition of sentence entered after a jury verdict is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. Howard (consolidated w/ 20200301)
2021 ND 101
Highlight: An order dismissing a complaint, information, indictment, or any count thereof, with or without prejudice, is appealable under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(1). |
|
Boutrous v. Transform Operating Stores, et al.
2021 ND 100
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), if an action presents more than one claim for relief, or if multiple parties are involved, the district court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities. |
|
Boutrous v. Transform Operating Stores, et al.
2021 ND 100 |
|
PLS Services v. Clear Creek Retirement Plan, et al.
2021 ND 99
Highlight: A N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification of judgment may be appropriate if the certified judgment completely decides an entire claim. |
|
McDougall, et al. v. AgCountry Farm Credit Services, et al.
2021 ND 98
Highlight: The principle of law of the case requires that the same legal question previously determined on appeal will not be decided differently on a second appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same. |
|
WSI v. Felan, et al.
2021 ND 97
Highlight: Section 65-01-02(11)(a)(3), N.D.C.C., requires claimants to prove a compensable heart-related injury by showing with reasonable medical certainty their employment caused the injury and unusual stress was at least 50% of the cause of the injury. |
|
Mistic v. Mistic
2021 ND 96 Highlight: An amended divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Tesoro Great Plains Gathering & Marketing v. Mountain Peak Builders
2021 ND 95
Highlight: If the obligation a lien secures is satisfied, the lien is extinguished and no longer valid. |
|
Dixon v. Dixon
2021 ND 94 Highlight: Appeal dismissed in supervised administration of a trust due to lack of a final order or judgment, or a N.D.R.Civ.P. P. 54(b) certification. |
|
State v. Mitchell
2021 ND 93
Highlight: An order dismissing a criminal complaint, information, or indictment is the equivalent of an order quashing an information or indictment and is therefore appealable under the statute. The State may either appeal an adverse ruling on probable cause or issue a new complaint upon the offer of additional evidence or other good cause. |
|
Froistad v. State
2021 ND 92
Highlight: When a motion following conviction is denominated as a motion under the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1, are applicable. |
|
Lyons v. State
2021 ND 91 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Interest of J.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2021 ND 90 Highlight: The condition that the court may order community placement only when the executive director files a petition requesting it satisfies procedural due process and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. |
|
State v. Louser, et al.
2021 ND 89
Highlight: A district court’s role to approve or reject amendments to criminal charges does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. |
|
Kruger, et al. v. Goossen
2021 ND 88 Highlight: A district court’s findings of fact after a bench trial are presumptively correct and will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. |
|
State v. Riggin
2021 ND 87
Highlight: Upon the declaration of a state of emergency, the North Dakota Disaster Act of 1985 vests with the governor emergency management powers. |
|
Blasi, et al. v. Bruin E&P Partners, et al. (consol. w/ 20200328-331)
2021 ND 86
Highlight: The following royalty provision in an oil and gas lease unambiguously establishes a royalty valuation point at the well: |
|
Pemberton v. State (consolidated w/20200182)
2021 ND 85
Highlight: To be convicted of attempted murder, the accused must have an intent to kill. Attempted “knowing” murder under N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(a) is a non-cognizable offense. |
|
Zander, et al. v. Morsette
2021 ND 84
Highlight: In a wrongful death action, a plaintiff is entitled to damages for injuries resulting from the death. Damages resulting from negligence preceding the death is not compensable under N.D.C.C. §§ 32-21-02 or 32-03.2-04. |
|
Atkins v. State
2021 ND 83
Highlight: A district court may summarily dismiss a successive application for post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 23-32.1-09(1) on its own motion before the State answers when the issues raised in the application have been previously decided by this Court. |
|
Lizakowski v. Lizakowski
2021 ND 82 Highlight: An amended divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7), and double costs and attorney’s fees are awarded under N.D.R.App.P. 38. |
|
City of West Fargo v. Medbery
2021 ND 81
Highlight: This Court does not weigh conflicting evidence or judge credibility of witnesses on appeal. We will affirm a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress if there is competent evidence capable of supporting the court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. |
|
State v. Lafromboise
2021 ND 80 Highlight: A district court’s decision to grant an extension or a continuance for good cause will not be reversed on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. |
|
Interest of K.V. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2021 ND 79
Highlight: Concerns about officer safety may justify a pat down search for weapons, but a subsequent pocket search must be justified as independently reasonable because they are distinct efforts. A pat down may justify a pocket search when an officer’s tactile perceptions lead to the conclusion the subject possesses a weapon or it is clear from the plain feel the object felt during the pat down is contraband. |
|
Shaw v. State
2021 ND 78 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Interest of P.F. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated w/20200284)
2021 ND 77 Highlight: A juvenile court order finding children to be deprived is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of J.O. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2021 ND 76
Highlight: The termination of a guardianship in one case does not create a factual presumption that a guardianship in a related case should be terminated. |
|
Sollin, et al. v. Klein
2021 ND 75
Highlight: A party may waive a personal jurisdiction argument by voluntarily submitting to the personal jurisdiction of the court. |
|
N.B. et al. v. Terwilliger, et al.
2021 ND 74
Highlight: When a district court answers a jury’s question on a point of law, it is further instructing the jury. |
|
Schmitz v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners
2021 ND 73 Highlight: A court must accept as true the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint for purposes of a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). |
|
City of Glen Ullin, et al. v. Schirado, et al.
2021 ND 72
Highlight: Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no dispute as to the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts, or whenever only a question of law is involved. |
|
City of Jamestown v. Casarez
2021 ND 71
Highlight: An ordinance is not in conflict with a statute where it does not allow that which the statute expressly prohibits. |
|
Big Pines v. Baker, et al.
2021 ND 70
Highlight: A personal guaranty allowing the guarantee to proceed directly against the guarantor without first proceeding against the principal is absolute and unconditional. |
|
State v. Landis
2021 ND 69 Highlight: A district court’s criminal judgment following a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State ex rel. Stenehjem v. Maras, et al.
2021 ND 68
Highlight: The notice requirements for claims against the State of North Dakota or a state employee under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-04(1) apply to counterclaims. |
|
Interest of A.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2021 ND 67 Highlight: Juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
State v. Rennie
2021 ND 66 Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion by not dismissing the case for failure to timely produce discovery materials. |
|
Interest of F.M.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2021 ND 65 Highlight: A district court’s continuing treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of S.R. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/20200215)
2021 ND 64 Highlight: A juvenile court’s findings of continued deprivation and orders keeping two children in the custody of Three Rivers Human Service Zone are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Kaspari v. Kaspari
2021 ND 63 Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(1), an award of spousal support must be for “a limited period of time.” An award of spousal support “until death or remarriage” does not comply with N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(1) because it is indefinite and lacks a fixed duration. |
|
Great Plains Royalty Corp. v. Earl Schwartz Co., et al.
2021 ND 62
Highlight: Standing is the concept used to determine whether a party is sufficiently affected to ensure a justiciable controversy exists. |
|
State v. Bee
2021 ND 61
Highlight: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures. But a warrantless search is not unreasonable if the search of the home falls under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. |
|
State v. Glasser (consolidated w/20200221)
2021 ND 60 Highlight: Any attempt by the trial court to amend or modify a final judgment is void unless it is made upon grounds provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment. |
|
Command Center v. Renewable Resources, et al.
2021 ND 59
Highlight: In an appeal from a bench trial, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of law are fully reviewable. |
|
Somerset Court, et al. v. Burgum, et al.
2021 ND 58
Highlight: A party waives an issue by not providing supporting arguments, reasoning, or citations to relevant legal authority. |
|
Ryberg, et al. v. Landsiedel
2021 ND 56
Highlight: A settlement agreement is a contract between parties, and thus contract law applies. |
|
State v. Richter
2021 ND 55 Highlight: Attempted promotion of obscenity to minors is not a cognizable offense. |
|
State v. Neugebauer
2021 ND 54
Highlight: Once a judgment is final, the district court generally loses jurisdiction to alter, amend, or modify that judgment. Unless grounds are provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment, any attempt by the district court to amend or modify a final judgment is void. |
|
Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bear Creek Gravel, et al.
2021 ND 53
Highlight: Whether a vehicle has been furnished for regular use is a conclusion of fact. |
|
State v. Borland
2021 ND 52
Highlight: A defendant waives the constitutional protection against being placed in double jeopardy after a verdict or judgment against them is set aside at their own instance, either by motion in trial court or upon successful appeal. |
|
Tebay v. State (consolidated w/ 20200317)
2021 ND 51
Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
Gerving v. Gerving
2021 ND 50 |
|
State v. Walbert
2021 ND 49
Highlight: Courts possess broad power to control their courtrooms, minimize disruptive behavior, and maintain security. |
|
Gil v. WSI
2021 ND 48 Highlight: Timely filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and procedural rules may not be used to enlarge periods of time conferring jurisdiction that are definitely fixed by statute. |
|
Saucedo v. State
2021 ND 47 Highlight: An order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Stands
2021 ND 46
Highlight: Sufficient competent evidence existed to show a defendant consented to a search of his person when he shrugged, mumbled, nodded, and lifted his hands. |
|
Campbell v. State
2021 ND 45
Highlight: The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel presents a mixed question of law and fact and is fully reviewable on appeal. |
|
Solberg v. McKennett
2021 ND 44
Highlight: Determining when a cause of action accrues is normally a question of fact, but it becomes a question of law when the material facts are undisputed. |
|
Breeze v. NDDOT
2021 ND 43 Highlight: An officer must be in an immediate pursuit of a person who is endeavoring to avoid arrest for hot pursuit to apply. |
|
State v. Martinez
2021 ND 42
Highlight: A district court should not automatically approve public trial waivers without considering the broader interests in open courts and public trials by conducting pre-closure Waller analysis. A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial may be waived if the record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. A defendant’s failure to object or acquiescence to a trial closure without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver will be reviewed on appeal as a forfeited error subject only to obvious error review. |
|
State v. Moore (consolidated w/20200081 & 20200082)
2021 ND 42
Highlight: A district court should not automatically approve public trial waivers without considering the broader interests in open courts and public trials by conducting pre-closure Waller analysis. A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial may be waived if the record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. A defendant’s failure to object or acquiescence to a trial closure without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver will be reviewed on appeal as a forfeited error subject only to obvious error review. |
|
State v. Molina
2021 ND 41 Highlight: A district court order denying a petition for writ of prohibition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Interest of L.T.D. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated w/20210035)
2021 ND 40 Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
|
WSI v. Sandberg, et al.
2021 ND 39
Highlight: Claimants must prove by a preponderance of evidence that they have sustained a compensable injury and are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. |
|
Lund v. Swanson, et al.
2021 ND 38
Highlight: A settlement agreement is a contract between parties, and thus contract law applies. |
|
Friesz v. State
2021 ND 37 Highlight: In a post-conviction relief proceeding, a petitioner is entitled to a fourteen-day window to respond to a request for dismissal of their petition for post-conviction relief. |
|
WSI v. Cherokee Services Group, et al.
2021 ND 36
Highlight: Tribal sovereign immunity protects Indian tribes against lawsuits, even ones brought by the State. |
|
AE2S Construction v. Hellervik Oilfield Technologies, et al.
2021 ND 35
Highlight: An appearance for purposes of N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a) is any response sufficient to give the plaintiff or his or her attorney notice of an intent to contest the claim. |
|
Atkins v. State
2021 ND 34
Highlight: If an applicant files a N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief following an order denying post-conviction relief, the motion will be treated as another post-conviction relief application and will not toll the time for appealing the order denying post-conviction relief. |
|
Orwig v. Orwig (consolidated w/20200124)
2021 ND 33
Highlight: In a court trial, any error in admitting a deposition is harmless unless the deposition testimony induced the court to make an essential finding which would not otherwise have been made or otherwise affected a party’s substantial rights. |
|
Paulson v. Paulson
2021 ND 32 Highlight: A district court’s decision on whether to vacate a divorce judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. A party seeking to vacate a divorce judgment entered pursuant to a settlement agreement under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. When considering whether a divorce judgment based on a settlement agreement should be vacated, the district court should inquire: (1) whether the agreement is free from mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; and (2) whether the agreement is unconscionable. The party seeking relief from judgment based on fraud has the burden to establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Unconscionability may be considered as a ground for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). To vacate a divorce judgment as unconscionable, there must be a showing of both procedural and substantive unconscionability. A disparate settlement is not necessarily substantively unconscionable, particularly in a short-term marriage |