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.
1881 - 1890 of 12446 results
Trulson, et al. v. Meiers, et al.
2019 ND 243
Highlight: Whether there was delivery of a deed is a question of fact. |
Carlson v. State
2019 ND 242 Highlight: The order denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Gregory
2019 ND 241
Highlight: The criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). Sufficient evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor of conviction of manslaughter. |
Brock v. Price, et al.
2019 ND 240
Highlight: A district court may revise any non-final order before entry of a final judgment and has discretion to extend deadlines in its scheduling order before trial. |
State v. Smith
2019 ND 239
Highlight: A defendant’s failure to object at trial to character evidence or evidence of alleged prior bad acts under N.D.R.Ev. 404 forfeits the claim of error. |
State v. Gray
2019 ND 238 Highlight: District court judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
Whetsel v. State
2019 ND 237 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). |
State v. Vogt
2019 ND 236
Highlight: A defendant seeking post-conviction relief cannot circumvent the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act by designating his application for post-conviction relief as a motion under a rule of criminal procedure or by filing his motion in his criminal file, rather than filing an application for post-conviction relief. |
Interest of G.D-M. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consol. w/ 20190233)
2019 ND 235 Highlight: Orders terminating father’s parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
Cichos, et al. v. Dakota Eye Institute, P.C., et al.
2019 ND 234 Highlight: For public policy reasons, there is no third-party duty owed by a physician to warn a patient of the danger of driving with a latent condition. A purely economic claim against a physician based on indemnity for medical malpractice is assignable from a patient to a third party who was injured as a result of the malpractice. Under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46, an affidavit has a low threshold to meet the requirements. |