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.
1641 - 1650 of 12359 results
Rath v. Rath
2020 ND 96 Highlight: District court orders denying a motion for contempt and a request to reconsider are affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1 (a)(1) and (4). |
State v. Helmenstein
2020 ND 95
Highlight: Amended criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
State v. Darji
2020 ND 94 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
C & K Consulting v. Ward County Board of Commissioners (consol w/ 20190313-
2020 ND 93 Highlight: The district court abused its discretion when it denied granting relief from a judgment dismissing a case as a sanction when the dismissal was based on a misapplication of the law. |
Schwindt v. Sorel
2020 ND 92
Highlight: Other factors may cause a horizontal gaze nystagmus test to be unreliable, including physiological causes for nystagmus, but those factors go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. |
Kastet v. NDDOT
2020 ND 91 Highlight: A district court judgment reversing an administrative law judge’s order suspending driving privileges is reversed and remanded. |
WSI v. Avila, et al.
2020 ND 90 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's order, which determined an individual is entitled to both the scheduled and whole body impairment award, is reversed and remanded under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46, because it is not in accordance with the law. |
Feltman, et al. v. Gaustad, et al.
2020 ND 89
Highlight: Elements of a legal malpractice claim are: 1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship, 2) a duty by the attorney to the client, 3) a breach of that duty by the attorney, and 4) damages to the client proximately caused by the breach of duty. |
State v. Burow
2020 ND 88 Highlight: Conviction of class C felony simple assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
State v. Dahl
2020 ND 87 Highlight: The State’s motion to terminate a pretrial diversion agreement and resume prosecution must be made within one month after expiration of the period of suspension specified in the agreement. |