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.
1601 - 1700 of 12359 results
|
State v. James
2020 ND 136
Highlight: The deprivation of the right to counsel is a structural error. This Court reviews an alleged denial of a defendant’s right to counsel de novo. |
|
Brown v. Brown
2020 ND 135 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 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 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
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. |
|
Avery v. Boysen
2020 ND 131
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. |
|
Nelson, et al. v. Nelson
2020 ND 130
Highlight: This Court will dismiss an appeal as moot if the issues become academic and there is no actual controversy left to be determined. |
|
Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust
2020 ND 129 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 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 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
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. |
|
Estate of Sande
2020 ND 125
Highlight: Affirmative defenses must be pled or are waived. |
|
State v. Powley (consolidated w/ 20190324)
2020 ND 124
Highlight: Warrantless search of a parolee’s cell phone was reasonable where the probationer was incarcerated for aggravated assault, the parolee’s conditions of parole included a search clause, and law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion parolee’s cell phone contained communications between parolee and victim of aggravated assault. |
|
State v. Selzler (consolidated w/ 20190357)
2020 ND 123 Highlight: A district court’s order granting a motion to suppress evidence subsequent to an invalid traffic stop of a vehicle is affirmed. |
|
State v. Stenbak
2020 ND 122 Highlight: The criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. McGowen
2020 ND 121 Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a continuance. Evidence was sufficient to support guilty verdicts, and the district court did not err when it ordered the defendant to pay restitution for injuries caused by the defendant’s assaults. |
|
State v. Washington
2020 ND 120 Highlight: A district court properly denied a motion to suppress by correctly applying the remedy for unlawful official conduct in a preventing-arrest case by permitting the defendant to raise the factual defense of unlawfulness. |
|
State v. Soucy
2020 ND 119 Highlight: Judicial notice is governed by N.D.R.Ev. 201. A district court must take notice only if a party requests it and supplies the court with the necessary information. |
|
State v. Yoney
2020 ND 118
Highlight: A party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party. The obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply to errors waived through the doctrine of invited error. |
|
Morales v. State
2020 ND 117 Highlight: Section 29-32.1-01, N.D.C.C., only permits a person who has been convicted of a crime to apply for post-conviction relief. When a criminal judgment has been reversed and remanded by this Court an individual has not been convicted of a crime and is not entitled to post-conviction relief. |
|
Gerving v. Gerving, et al.
2020 ND 116 Highlight: In divorce cases, the district court must make an equitable property distribution. |
|
Kling v. NDDOT
2020 ND 115 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative suspension of driving privileges for a period of 91 days is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Axtman v. Axtman
2020 ND 114
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), a district court may amend a judgment to correct a mistake resulting from an oversight or omission that causes the judgment to fail to reflect the court’s intent. |
|
Voigt v. Nelson
2020 ND 113
Highlight: Section 8.6, N.D.R.Ct., governs parenting investigators and incorporates the code of conduct. The code of conduct provides a parenting investigator should aggressively strive to achieve professional independence and objectivity. |
|
Dellinger v. Wolf, et al.
2020 ND 112 Highlight: The Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide statutory authorization for immediate appeals of decisions concerning insurers’ duty to defend. |
|
Thiel v. Thiel
2020 ND 111 Highlight: District court orders denying motions for continuance and for appointment of a parenting investigator and a divorce judgment are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Sims v. Sims, et al.
2020 ND 110
Highlight: Extended parenting time with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely awarded if the child is old enough, absent a reason for denying it. |
|
Horvath v. State
2020 ND 109 Highlight: A district court’s order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Traynor Law Firm v. State, et al.
2020 ND 108 Highlight: A district court judgment determining the State is responsible to pay attorney’s fees for removal of a county officer is affirmed and awarding interest at 6% per year is reversed. |
|
Jacobs-Raak v. Raak, et al.
2020 ND 107
Highlight: Only judgments and decrees constituting a final judgment and specific orders enumerated by statute are appealable. |
|
State v. Wayland
2020 ND 106 Highlight: Although the reason for the continuance is absent from the record, under de novo review a district court did not violate the Appellant’s right to a speedy trial by continuing the trial to a later date. |
|
Albrecht v. Albrecht, et al.
2020 ND 105
Highlight: A motion to dismiss a complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the statement of the claim presented in the complaint. |
|
Arnold, et al. v. Trident Resources, et al.
2020 ND 104 Highlight: A district court’s order imposing sanctions for contempt did not provide a sufficient record to review the appropriateness of the sanction. |
|
Decker v. WSI, et al.
2020 ND 103 Highlight: District court judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s decision denying further workers’ compensation benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). |
|
Hewitt v. NDDOT
2020 ND 102
Highlight: Copies of official Department of Transportation records may be certified as correct by Department employees who are not acting in a director capacity. |
|
State v. Michel
2020 ND 101
Highlight: A district court’s response to a jury request for supplemental instructions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. |
|
Dodge v. State
2020 ND 100
Highlight: Whether a defendant is competent to plead guilty is a finding of fact. |
|
New Freedom Center v. Job Service, et al.
2020 ND 99 Highlight: Judgment affirming Job Service North Dakota's allowance of unemployment benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) and (7). |
|
Brossart, et al. v. Janke, et al.
2020 ND 98
Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 28-20.1-03(2), the clerk of district court is required to mail notice of the filing of a foreign judgment to the judgment debtor. |
|
State v. Kolstad
2020 ND 97
Highlight: The State may appeal from an order quashing an information or indictment. |
|
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. |
|
Interest of A.T. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 86 Highlight: An order terminating father’s parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Foster
2020 ND 85
Highlight: Questions requiring the defendant to give his opinion regarding the veracity and credibility of earlier witnesses is improper. |
|
Interest of F.M.G. (Confidential)
2020 ND 84 Highlight: A district court’s continuing treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Shadow Industries, LLP v. Hoffman, et al.
2020 ND 83 Highlight: A district court erred in determining a lease was ambiguous with regard to when the term ended. A term in a lease is not ambiguous simply because it requires a future event or contingency. |
|
Interest of M.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 82 Highlight: Judgment terminating father’s parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Johnson v. City of Burlington
2020 ND 81 Highlight: This Court’s review of the appeal from the decision of a local governing body is very limited. A city’s denial of a variance application is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable when the ordinances do not provide for a variance based on the evidence presented. |
|
State v. Craig
2020 ND 80 Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. |
|
Schweitzer v. Miller
2020 ND 79
Highlight: A party may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during a proceeding. |
|
State v. Krogstad
2020 ND 78 Highlight: If a defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial, the admission of testimonial statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. |
|
Willprecht v. Willprecht
2020 ND 77
Highlight: In divorce proceedings, if the parties do not agree on a valuation date for marital property, the valuation date is the date the parties separated or the date of the service of the summons in the action, whichever occurred first. |
|
Christianson v. NDDOT
2020 ND 76 Highlight: The Department of Transportation’s decision to suspend an individual’s driving privileges was not in accordance with the law when it was based on evidence that was inadmissible at the adjudication hearing. |
|
Joyce v. Joyce
2020 ND 75
Highlight: A district court may require a hearing even when no party requests a hearing. |
|
State v. West
2020 ND 74
Highlight: Probationers consent to reasonable warrantless searches when they submit to a search condition as part of the terms of their probation. |
|
North Star Mutual Insurance v. Ackerman, et al.
2020 ND 73 Highlight: Under the concurrent cause doctrine, an insurance policy provides coverage for liability when both a covered risk and an excluded risk contribute to the accident. |
|
Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 72 Highlight: A juvenile court does not have an obligation to ensure a party’s presence. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10(a)(3), a parent of a child must be present unless excused by the court. |
|
Matter of Hogen Trust B
2020 ND 71 Highlight: A district court may clarify its own previous order. Due process is an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and meaningful manner and is complied with if the party has an opportunity, but argues other issues. A party that does not raise an issue in the district court cannot argue the issue for the first time on appeal. |
|
Martodam v. Martodam
2020 ND 70
Highlight: Interlocutory orders in an action are merged into the final judgment and may be reviewed on appeal of that judgment. A final judgment supersedes an interim order’s parenting provisions, which are by nature temporary. |
|
State v. Cook
2020 ND 69
Highlight: In determining whether the moving party has established a prima facie case of an illegal seizure, a district court may consider evidence already in the record. |
|
State v. Eggleston
2020 ND 68
Highlight: The district court did not err in dismissing the defendant’s motion for an acquittal because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict defendant and for the jury to conclude he was not acting in self-defense. |
|
Lakeview Excavating, Inc. v. Dickey County, et al.
2020 ND 67
Highlight: Determining when a cause of action accrues is usually a question of fact, but it becomes a question of law when the material facts are undisputed. Under the discovery rule the accrual of a claim is postponed until the plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the wrongful act and its resulting injury. |
|
State v. Awad
2020 ND 66 Highlight: An advisory about possible immigration consequences, like the other advisories in N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1), need not be repeated immediately prior to entry of a guilty plea if the advisory was given at an earlier hearing and the record reflects the defendant’s knowledge of his rights. |
|
Haas, et al. v. Hudson & Wylie LLP, et al.
2020 ND 65
Highlight: Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. |
|
Big Pines v. Baker, et al.
2020 ND 64
Highlight: The primary purpose in interpreting contracts is to ascertain the parties’ intent. |
|
Bullinger Enterprises v. Dahl, et al.
2020 ND 63 Highlight: Subsection (6) of the six year statute of limitation under N.D.C.C. § 28 01 16 governs fraud and deceit actions. The district court did not err in finding when the plaintiff was placed on notice of its claims and the assertion of a cause of action was outside the six year statute of limitation. |
|
Messmer v. Messmer
2020 ND 62 |
|
SAEJ Enterprises v. WSI
2020 ND 61 Highlight: District court judgment affirming an administrative law judge decision that affirmed a Workforce Safety and Insurance order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) and (7). |
|
Interest of R.S. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 60 Highlight: A district court’s order granting the request for continuing treatment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2). |
|
Wasley v. WSI, et al.
2020 ND 59 |
|
Sapa, et al. v. Lofthus
2020 ND 58 Highlight: A district court judgment relating to the cancellation of a contract for deed is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Interest of D.M.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 55 Highlight: Juvenile court orders finding and affirming aggravating circumstances and ending services are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2),(7). |
|
Northern States Power v. Mikkelson, et al.
2020 ND 54 Highlight: The amount of damages caused by an eminent domain taking is an issue of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. |
|
Schulke v. NDDOT
2020 ND 53 Highlight: Section 39-20-14(1), N.D.C.C., establishes that drivers are deemed to have provided consent to submit to a screening test when the driver commits a traffic offense or is involved in an accident and, in conjunction with the traffic violation or accident, law enforcement formulates an opinion the driver’s body contains alcohol; It does not require the screening test to be conducted at the location of the stop. |
|
State v. Mohammed
2020 ND 52 Highlight: Sufficient evidence supports the criminal judgment finding the defendant guilty of gross sexual imposition. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion for acquittal. |
|
State v. Ovind
2020 ND 51
Highlight: Defendants have the right to court-appointed counsel at public expense in all felony cases and in all non-felony cases, unless the sentence upon conviction will not include imprisonment, only if they are eligible under the guidelines governing indigency. |
|
State v. Marcum
2020 ND 50
Highlight: Exclusion of evidence is not the proper remedy when law enforcement acts in good faith upon objectively reasonable reliance that a warrant was properly issued. |
|
Rieger v. Ackerman, et al.
2020 ND 49
Highlight: District courts have broad discretion in partition actions to do equity and make a fair division of the property or proceeds between the parties and have wide flexibility in ordering proper relief for the parties. |
|
State v. McAllister
2020 ND 48
Highlight: The district court did not err when it limited cross-examination of a victim regarding the victim’s interest in obtaining restitution. |
|
Northwest Grading, Inc. v. North Star Water, LLC, et al.
2020 ND 47
Highlight: Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), N.D.R.Civ.P., permits a district court to sanction a party in violation of a discovery order by prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing a claim or defense with evidence not disclosed under the discovery order. |
|
Smithberg v. Jacobson, et al.
2020 ND 46 Highlight: When an appellate court remands a case for a trial without limitation, a party who previously stipulated to waive the right to a jury trial may demand a jury trial, unless the parties intended the stipulation to apply to any future trials or the right is otherwise limited by law. |
|
Interest of E.K. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 44 Highlight: A district court treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Benson
2020 ND 43 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Stevenson v. Biffert
2020 ND 42
Highlight: This Court does not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses in a primary residential responsibility case. |
|
State v. Gratton
2020 ND 41 Highlight: Having a marital property interest in a vehicle does not prevent an individual from being prosecuted for theft of the vehicle. A district court’s authority to weigh evidence and assess credibility of witnesses at a preliminary hearing is limited. |
|
Vetter v. Vetter
2020 ND 40 |
|
Ouradnik v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2020 ND 39
Highlight: The district court erred by reversing the administrative hearing officer’s decision based on an issue that was not preserved for review. |
|
State v. Sah
2020 ND 38 Highlight: If a defendant moves for a new trial, the defendant is limited on appeal to the grounds presented to the district court in the motion. If the defendant does not preserve an issue for appeal, and does not argue obvious error this Court may decline to review the issue for obvious error. |
|
City of West Fargo v. Ekstrom
2020 ND 37
Highlight: A mistrial that is declared with the defendant’s consent, such as when the defendant moves for a mistrial without having been goaded into doing so by misconduct attributable to the prosecutor, generally does not bar a later prosecution. |
|
Carlson v. Carlson
2020 ND 36
Highlight: Section 14-09-06.2(1)(j), N.D.C.C., creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence if certain criteria is met. |
|
Reese v. Reese-Young
2020 ND 35
Highlight: The law in North Dakota is expressed by various sources, including statutes and common law, and the common law applies when it does not conflict with statutory law. |
|
State v. Lyon
2020 ND 34
Highlight: Issues which are beyond the scope of a remand in a prior appeal will not be addressed in a subsequent appeal after remand. |