Search Tips

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.

1661 - 1670 of 12419 results

Brown v. Brown 2020 ND 135
Docket No.: 20190390
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A “full hearing” under N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02(4) requires a petitioner to prove his or her petition through testimony, rather than affidavits alone.

Oien v. State 2020 ND 134
Docket No.: 20200030
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: The denial of a defendant’s application for post-conviction relief for misuse of process is affirmed pursuant to N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

State v. Bethancorth 2020 ND 133
Docket No.: 20200020
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for criminal trespass entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Kremer v. State 2020 ND 132
Docket No.: 20190408
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: To establish prejudice under Strickland in a plea bargain situation, the petitioner must allege facts that, if proven, would support a conclusion that rejection of the plea bargain would have been rational because valid defenses existed, a suppression motion could have undermined the prosecution’s case, or there was a realistic potential for a lower sentence. A defendant’s subjective, self-serving statement that, with competent advice, he would have insisted on going to trial is insufficient to establish prejudice under Strickland in a plea bargain situation.
The provisions of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 are mandatory, and substantial compliance is required to ensure a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enters a guilty plea. Although N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 does not require ritualistic compliance, a court must substantially comply with the rule’s procedural requirements to ensure a defendant is entering a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.

Avery v. Boysen 2020 ND 131
Docket No.: 20190199
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A party seeking relief in motions for reconsideration and for new trial has the burden to affirmatively establish the district court abused its discretion denying the motions.
The district court has broad discretion over the presentation of evidence and conduct of a trial, in addition to whether to grant a motion for a continuance, and the court’s decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

Nelson, et al. v. Nelson 2020 ND 130
Docket No.: 20190347
Filing Date: 6/8/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: This Court will dismiss an appeal as moot if the issues become academic and there is no actual controversy left to be determined.

The failure to obtain a stay pending appeal may moot issues raised on appeal.

Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust 2020 ND 129
Docket No.: 20200047
Filing Date: 6/8/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: District court orders denying a motion to vacate and prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing new or additional litigation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4).

Davies v. State (consolidated w/ 20190341 & 20190342) 2020 ND 128
Docket No.: 20190340
Filing Date: 6/2/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment dismissing an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Mooney 2020 ND 127
Docket No.: 20190333
Filing Date: 6/2/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Rustad v. Baumgartner 2020 ND 126
Docket No.: 20190276
Filing Date: 6/2/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The “law of the case” doctrine is the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same. The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms.
A parent moving to modify parenting time must show that a material change in circumstances has occurred since entry of the prior parenting time order and that modification is in the child’s best interests.
A district court’s decision on parenting time is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.

Page 167 of 1242