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.
1701 - 1800 of 12426 results
|
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. |
|
State v. Pagenkopf
2020 ND 33
Highlight: A district court has wide discretion in setting the amount of restitution, and the district court does not abuse its discretion by awarding restitution that is within the range of reasonableness. |
|
Hustle Proof, et al. v. Matthews, et al.
2020 ND 32
Highlight: A party seeking relief from a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) must factually demonstrate exceptional circumstances. |
|
State v. Jensen
2020 ND 31 Highlight: Under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2), the moving party may file a reply brief within seven days after service of the answer brief. A motion is not submitted to the court for decision until all briefs are filed or the time for filing has expired. |
|
State v. Thomas
2020 ND 30
Highlight: A district court’s decision whether to grant a continuance will not be set aside on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. |
|
State v. Brown
2020 ND 29 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 5, East Central Judicial District
2020 ND 28 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo. |
|
Estate of Albrecht
2020 ND 27
Highlight: The district court’s factual findings in a partition action will not be reversed on appeal, unless they are clearly erroneous. |
|
Aftem Lake Developments Inc. v. Riverview Homeowners Assoc.
2020 ND 26 Highlight: A statutory dedication of property divests the donor of ownership in the property. |
|
State v. Wickham
2020 ND 25 Highlight: The district court did not obviously err by admitting fact testimony and by not stopping a witness from testifying by way of a mix of permissible lay opinion testimony and arguably impermissible expert opinion testimony. |
|
Krebsbach, et al. v. Trinity Hospitals, Inc., et al.
2020 ND 24
Highlight: Negligence claims relating to phlebotomy services performed by a hospital are governed by the two-year malpractice statute of limitations. |
|
Devore v. American Eagle Energy Corporation, et al.
2020 ND 23
Highlight: An employer of an independent contractor generally is not liable for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor. |
|
PHI Financial Services v. Johnston Law Office, et al. (consol. w/ 20190001)
2020 ND 22
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. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it is disclosed with certainty the impossibility of proving a claim upon which relief can be granted. |
|
State v. Mondragon
2020 ND 21 Highlight: When determining if there is good cause to continue when a defendant has elected his statutory speedy trial rights, failure of the court to address the factors will not be reversed if we are able to analyze the factors based on the record. A defendant cannot have the benefit of delay while simultaneously claiming the right to a speedy trial. A failure to show prejudice substantially weakens a speedy trial claim. |
|
Hondl v. State, et al.
2020 ND 20
Highlight: Absent personal jurisdiction, a court is powerless to do anything beyond dismissing without prejudice. |
|
Chisholm v. State
2020 ND 19
Highlight: District courts are required to dismiss an applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction relief counsel in a Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act proceeding. |
|
Konkel v. Amb
2020 ND 17
Highlight: 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 the modification is in the child’s best interests. |
|
Hauer v. Zerr, et al.
2020 ND 16
Highlight: A mistake of law arising out of ignorance of the law rather than a misapprehension of the law does not support the remedy of reformation. |
|
State v. Wallitsch
2020 ND 15 Highlight: The district court did not obviously err by not providing a curative instruction regarding a potential juror’s comments during voir dire. |
|
Ellis v. WSI
2020 ND 14 Highlight: The time for an appeal from a posthearing administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10 and ch. 28-32. The Legislature has set the time for an appeal to the district court at thirty days from the date notice of the order has been given as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-32-39, including service by mail. |
|
State v. Lail
2020 ND 13
Highlight: In murder for hire cases, taking actions that could reasonably lead to the hired individual committing the solicited killing constitute a substantial step in attempting to commit the underlying crime. |
|
Minn-Kota Ag Products, Inc. v. N.D. Public Service Commission, et al.
2020 ND 12
Highlight: Any person who is directly interested in the proceedings before an administrative agency, who is factually aggrieved by the decision of the agency, and who participates in the proceedings before the agency is a party and has standing to appeal from the decision of the agency. |
|
Cook v. Cook, et al.
2020 ND 11
Highlight: Technical violations of a court order do not necessarily require a finding of contempt. |
|
Reineke v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2020 ND 10 Highlight: Suspension of a driver's license must be done in accordance to law. |
|
Gustafson v. Poitra, et al.
2020 ND 9 Highlight: The appellants did not meet their burden under either Montana exception and did not explain how a district court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction by granting a remedy that may not be enforceable. The district court judgment is affirmed. |
|
Presswood v. Runyan
2020 ND 8
Highlight: The right to appeal is jurisdictional and, if we conclude we do not have jurisdiction, we will dismiss an appeal on our own motion. |
|
Jarvis v. WSI
2020 ND 7
Highlight: An appeal to a district court from a post-hearing administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10 and N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32. |
|
McDougall, et al. v. AgCountry Farm Credit Services, PCA, et al.
2020 ND 6 Highlight: The statute of frauds does not bar a deceit claim made by a third party to an unenforceable contract, who is not seeking to enforce the alleged agreement. |
|
Aldinger v. Aldinger
2020 ND 5
Highlight: Judgment affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4), and (7). |
|
Behm v. Behm
2020 ND 4 Highlight: A divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Gabel v. Thompson
2020 ND 3 Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Friesz v. State
2020 ND 2 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Chatman v. State
2020 ND 1 Highlight: District court orders summarily denying an application for post–conviction relief, a motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, and a motion for reconsideration are affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6),(7). |
|
Palmer, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc.
2019 ND 306 Highlight: In a collateral attack of a federal district court’s final judgment in a class action, review is limited to an examination of procedural due process. The court must determine (1) whether there were safeguards in place to guarantee sufficient notice and adequate representation; and (2) whether such safeguards were, in fact, applied. |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6, South Central Judicial District (consol. 20190346)
2019 ND 305 |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 7, South Central Judicial District (consol. 20190371)
2019 ND 305 |
|
Interest of G.L.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 304 |