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 12364 results
|
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 |
|
Rath v. Rath
2019 ND 303 Highlight: District court orders denying a motion for an extension, denying a motion to amend the parenting plan and child support, and denying a motion for relief from order and new trial are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4). |
|
Interest of Voisine
2019 ND 302 Highlight: The evidence does not support the conclusion that the civilly committed resident remains a sexually dangerous individual and is clearly erroneous. The order denying the petition for discharge is reversed. |
|
Lessard v. Johnson
2019 ND 301
Highlight: A district court has discretion in deciding whether to grant a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59. |
|
State v. Komrosky
2019 ND 300
Highlight: Warrantless discovery of evidence in a defendant’s home is justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement if entry was actually motivated by a perceived need to render aid or assistance. |
|
Thomas v. Thomas
2019 ND 299 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. A district court is not bound to accept stipulations regarding custody and care of children if it finds the stipulations are not in the best interests of the child. A district court’s findings and conclusions regarding the presumption and stipulations should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to understand the basis for its decision. |
|
State v. Rose
2019 ND 298
Highlight: Statutes are generally not retroactive unless the legislature expressly declares so. |
|
Edwardson v. State
2019 ND 297
Highlight: Whether a petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact and is fully reviewable on appeal. The district court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. |
|
Skaw ND Precast, LLC v. Oil Capital Ready Mix, LLC, et al.
2019 ND 296
Highlight: When a lessor sells property that is subject to an unfulfilled lease, the buyer takes the property subject to the terms of the lease. |
|
Open Road Trucking v. Swanson, et al.
2019 ND 295 Highlight: A judgment debtor who pays more than his or her proportionate share of a judgment may take an assignment of the judgment for the purpose of enforcing contribution against co-debtors. |
|
WSI v. Salat, et al.
2019 ND 294 Highlight: A reasoning mind could reasonably determine the claimant was unable to work and earn as much as he earned at the time of his injury and the claimant suffered low back pain that was attributable to the compensable work injury after November 11, 2016. |
|
Lindstrom v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2019 ND 293 Highlight: A reasoning mind could have reasonably found a report and notice was forwarded to the Department within five days of the issuance of the temporary operator’s permit as required by law. The hearing officer’s decision to suspend the appellant’s license for 180 days is affirmed. |
|
State v. Walker
2019 ND 292 Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered restitution against a defendant who pled guilty to theft for possession of a stolen motorcycle, and that motorcycle was returned damaged to the victim. |
|
Stein v. State
2019 ND 291 Highlight: A district court was not clearly erroneous in denying the application for post-conviction relief. |
|
State v. Comes
2019 ND 290 Highlight: When both N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1 and N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(1) apply to a defendant’s sentence, the defendant is not eligible for parole until eighty-five percent of the sentence has been served or thirty years after admission to the penitentiary, whichever is greater. |
|
State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber
2019 ND 289
Highlight: Res judicata principles prohibit the review of arguments raised in earlier appeals. |
|
Neutman v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2019 ND 288 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b). |
|
Jesser v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2019 ND 287 Highlight: A driver’s limited post-arrest statutory right to counsel does not apply prior to arrest, and the holding in Kuntz v. State Highway Commissioner, 405 N.W.2d 285 (N.D. 1987) is not extended to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14. |
|
City of Fargo v. Wieland
2019 ND 286
Highlight: Flood control projects are a public use for eminent domain purposes. |
|
Lebeau v. State
2019 ND 285 Highlight: An order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4). |
|
State v. Dubois
2019 ND 284 Highlight: A district court is authorized to revoke probation for a violation prior to expiration or termination of probation under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6). A court has discretion in sentencing and need not explicitly reference the statutory sentence factors when fixing a sentence. Section 12.1-32-07(6), N.D.C.C., permits a district court to impose any sentence available at the initial time of sentencing upon revocation of probation. Issues not raised in the district court cannot generally be raised for the first time on appeal, absent obvious error. |
|
State v. Pailing
2019 ND 283 Highlight: A district court did not violate the defendant’s due process rights or abuse its discretion in overruling the defendant’s objection and denying the motion for mistrial concerning the State’s anecdote during closing argument. |
|
State Tax Commissioner v. Bosset
2019 ND 282 Highlight: A district court summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (6) and (7). |
|
Wilber v. Scaff
2019 ND 281 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Continental Resources v. N.D. Dep't. of Environmental Quality
2019 ND 280 Highlight: Where the legislature has deferred to an administrative agency’s expertise to develop rules, and has declined to provide clear direction on the substance of the rules to be developed, the “purely legal question” exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply. |
|
Saastad v. Saastad
2019 ND 279
Highlight: A district court’s award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. |
|
State v. Job
2019 ND 278 Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. |
|
Matter of O.H.W. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 277 Highlight: A district court’s order denying a petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
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). |
|
State v. Buchanan
2019 ND 266 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. Wallace
2019 ND 265 Highlight: The criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3),(4). |
|
Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust
2019 ND 264 Highlight: An order denying a motion to vacate and terminate a trust is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Matter of Didier
2019 ND 263 Highlight: A district court must find a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be taken into account with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Inappropriate behavior not deemed actual misconduct requiring a formal sanction may be considered in determining an inability to control behavior. Conduct showing more than just a lack of progress, but a lack of participation, is sufficient to show an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. |
|
State v. Vetter
2019 ND 262
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Ev. 201(b)(2), a court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. |
|
Fettig v. Fettig, et al. (consolidated w/ 20190103)
2019 ND 261
Highlight: Real property can be gifted to a minor if there is an intention by the donor to then and there give the property to the donee, coupled with an actual or constructive delivery of the property to the donee, and acceptance of the property by the donee. |
|
State v. Pittenger
2019 ND 260 Highlight: The criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
|
State v. Baltrusch
2019 ND 259
Highlight: To support a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, the defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, reveals no reasonable inference of guilt. |
|
Interest of J.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 258
Highlight: When a committed individual petitions for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual, the State must prove the individual remains a sexually dangerous individual by clear and convincing evidence. |
|
Estate of Blikre
2019 ND 257
Highlight: A holographic will is valid if the signature and material portions of the document are in the testator’s handwriting. |
|
State v. G.C.H.
2019 ND 256 Highlight: The question of law certified by a North Dakota district court is not answered because it is not dispositive of the case. The North Dakota Supreme Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction to reverse the district court’s order finding a 16 and 17 year old married person was not a “child” under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(4)(b) when the offenses allegedly were committed. Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
|
Interest of K.V. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 255 Highlight: Juvenile court findings of delinquency for fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer and reckless driving are not clearly erroneous and are affirmed. A juvenile court finding of delinquency for criminal trespass is reversed due to insufficient evidence. |
|
State v. Grzadzieleski
2019 ND 254
Highlight: The State may not appeal from an in limine order excluding evidence based on the physician-patient privilege under N.D.R.Ev. 503. |
|
Interest of D.V.A. (Confidential)
2019 ND 253 Highlight: A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations. v. Brockett Company, et al.
2019 ND 252 Highlight: A lienholder who recovers in a suit upon a bond is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee for the proceedings before the district court and for a successful appeal. |
|
Clarke v. Taylor
2019 ND 251 Highlight: A district court’s domestic violence protection order is affirmed. |
|
State v. Ruddell
2019 ND 250 Highlight: District court criminal judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Huerd v. General Motors, LLC
2019 ND 249 Highlight: An action brought in small claims court is subject to the doctrine of res judicata. A small claims court’s judgment cannot be appealed in district court. Unless requested by a party, oral argument on a motion under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 is not required. |
|
Herman v. Herman, et al.
2019 ND 248
Highlight: N.D.C.C. § 59-10.1-03(1) requires receipt of the notice, proven through the presumption or otherwise, to begin the 120 day limitation period. The presumption under N.D.C.C. § 59-10.1-03(1) is rebuttable. |
|
Interest of G.T. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consol. w/20190258-20190260 & 20190265-20190268)
2019 ND 247 Highlight: Orders terminating mother, father, and John Doe’s parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4), and (7). |
|
State v. Tyler
2019 ND 246 Highlight: When a party moves for a mistrial because of an unavailable witness who already testified and neither party is at fault, the movant must make an offer of proof to provide a record of what additional testimony the witness would provide and why the additional testimony is material. |
|
Ramirez v. Houge, et al.
2019 ND 245 Highlight: District court judgment affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (2), and (4). |