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.
151 - 160 of 12358 results
Liberty Petroleum Corp. v. NDIC, et al.
2024 ND 183
Highlight: Pre-unitization costs of drilling and operating a well, which is now attributed to the unit, reasonably fall within the definition of unit expense. Under unitization, the risk penalty may be recovered out of, and only out of, production from the unit. |
State v. Hoffman
2024 ND 182 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Urrabazo v. State
2024 ND 181 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
State v. Roller
2024 ND 180
Highlight: "Willful" conduct is not incongruent with "intentional" conduct. "Willful" conduct includes "intentional" conduct, meaning a person's conduct can be both willful and intentional. |
Interest of J.R.
2024 ND 179 Highlight: A district court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1 (a)(2) and (4). |
Interest of T.R.
2024 ND 179 Highlight: A district court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1 (a)(2) and (4). |
Estate of Olson
2024 ND 178 Highlight: A district court order dismissing a petition for formal probate for failure to prosecute under N.D.R.Civ.P. 40(e) is reversed because the record does not show a lack of prosecution for more than a year. |
Interest of J.M.P.
2024 ND 177 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
Disciplinary Board v. Merkens (interim Suspension)
2024 ND 176 Highlight: Lawyer interim suspended |
State v. Rolland
2024 ND 175
Highlight: Due process prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. A defendant is incompetent when he lacks (1) sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. The prosecution must show by a preponderance of evidence that a defendant is competent to stand trial. |