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.
1891 - 1900 of 12235 results
|
Tornabeni v. Wold, et al.
2018 ND 253
Highlight: The existence and terms of an oral contract are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous rule. |
|
State v. Hebert
2018 ND 252 Highlight: A criminal judgment convicting the defendant of tampering or damaging a public service is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b). |
|
Sabot v. State
2018 ND 251 Highlight: Summary dismissal of post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Interest of D.V.A. (Confidential)
2018 ND 250 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). |
|
State v. Mejia
2018 ND 249
Highlight: Summary affirmance is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. |
|
Sorlie v. Sorlie
2018 ND 248 Highlight: A district court’s award of residential responsibility is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Johnston Law Office, P.C. v. Brakke, et al.
2018 ND 247 Highlight: If a party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the party opposing the motion must present competent admissible evidence to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. |
|
Petition to Permit Temporary Provision of Legal Services
2018 ND 246 Highlight: Order on petition for temporary lawyer practice. |
|
Thompson, et al. v. Molde, et al.
2018 ND 245
Highlight: Summary judgment allows for the prompt resolution of a controversy on the merits without a trial if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
|
State v. Rogers
2018 ND 244 Highlight: Defendant appeals from a district court judgment for gross sexual imposition. Because the district court did not make individualized findings supporting closure of the competency hearing under Waller, the Sixth Amendment public trial guarantee wasviolated. The restitution award was proper and it is affirmed consistent with our remand. We remand for further proceedings. |