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.
1591 - 1600 of 12235 results
|
State v. Legare
2019 ND 276 Highlight: An Alford plea does not preserve non-jurisdictional claims for appeal. |
|
Krump-Wooton v. Krump
2019 ND 275 Highlight: A district court’s judgment denying a motion to modify parenting time and a motion to modify primary residential responsibility is affirmed. |
|
State v. Maines (consolidated w/20180396)
2019 ND 274 Highlight: A district court may extend an offenders’ sentence if the offender is found to be a habitual offender under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09. Section 12.1-32-02(9), N.D.C.C., does not apply to an offender’s out of state felony convictions for purposes of determining if the offender is a habitual offender. Section 12.1-32-09, N.D.C.C., specifically refers to convictions in another state and defines a felony in another state as one that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or more, regardless of the actual punishment imposed. |
|
Hughes v. Olheiser Masonry, et al.
2019 ND 273 Highlight: Delivery is not accomplished at the time of mailing the summons and complaint to the sheriff’s department under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-38. An attempt to commence an action is not the equivalent to commencement when the summons is not delivered to the sheriff within the statute of limitations. |
|
Interest of J.T.L.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 272 Highlight: Order terminating father’s parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Dubois
2019 ND 271 Highlight: A district court’s order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Wolf v. Wolf, et al.
2019 ND 270 Highlight: The district court’s judgment modifying parenting time is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Watkins v. State
2019 ND 269 Highlight: The order denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Broten v. Carter, et al.
2019 ND 268
Highlight: The two year statute of limitations for malpractice claims begins to run when the client discovers his attorney’s negligence and suffers some damage. |
|
Kemmet v. Steiner, et al.
2019 ND 267 Highlight: A district court judgment is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |