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.
101 - 200 of 12276 results
|
Wright, et al. v. Holmes
2025 ND 212 Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
State v. Ahmed
2025 ND 211
Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-01-01(3), a firearm means any weapon that will expel, or is readily capable of expelling, a projectile by the action of an explosive. |
|
State v. Running Bear
2025 ND 210 Highlight: A jury verdict's criminal conviction for child abuse of a victim under six years of age is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Fairville Township v. Wells Cty. Water Resource District
2025 ND 209 Highlight: Section 61-16.1-51, N.D.C.C., does not authorize water resource boards to assess their costs against governing bodies not acting as a landowner. |
|
Adoption of G.M.H.
2025 ND 208
Highlight: District courts have discretion to terminate parental rights based on abandonment by evaluating whether a noncustodial parent failed to communicate with or support their child without justifiable cause. Courts must assess the specific facts of each case to determine if the parent's lack of contact and care was justified by the circumstances or represented an unjustified failure to maintain the parent-child relationship. |
|
Interest of B.L.H.
2025 ND 207 Highlight: An order granting involuntary treatment with prescribed medication is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
MidFirst Bank v. Young, et al.
2025 ND 206
Highlight: A mortgagor lacks standing to challenge a mortgage assignment between the assignor and assignee as a non-party to that transaction. |
|
Harris v. State
2025 ND 205
Highlight: A plaintiff seeking postconviction relief is required to show but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability the result at trial would have been different. |
|
State v. Martinez
2025 ND 204
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 24, a jury is not empaneled until all jurors, including any alternates, have been qualified, accepted, and sworn. |
|
State v. Martinez
2025 ND 204
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 24, a jury is not empaneled until all jurors, including any alternates, have been qualified, accepted, and sworn. |
|
Interest of A.D.-B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of M.D.-B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of C.B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Kalmio v. State
2025 ND 202 Highlight: An order denying relief in a postconviction proceeding is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
State v. Bell
2025 ND 201
Highlight: When interpreting a statute, the primary goal is to determine the legislature's intent by looking to the statute's plain language and attempting to give each word, phrase, and sentence its ordinary meaning. |
|
State v. Lizotte
2025 ND 200 Highlight: A district court order revoking probation and resentencing the defendant is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic. et al. v. Wrigley, et al.
2025 ND 199 Highlight: A sufficient majority was not reached to declare unconstitutional N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1, which criminalizes abortion with exceptions. The effect of the separate opinions is that a district court judgment declaring N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 unconstitutional and void is reversed. |
|
Johnson v. Staiger
2025 ND 198
Highlight: District courts may properly consider a parent's alcohol abuse and act of driving under the influence when determining whether a material change of circumstances exists. However, our cases do not show an isolated incident of a parent driving under the influence automatically mandates a finding of a material change of circumstances. |
|
State v. Vetter
2025 ND 197
Highlight: Issues not raised or considered in the district court, including claims of constitutionally protected activity, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, unless the issue rises to the level of obvious error. It is the defendant's burden to show an obvious error that affects a substantial right, and the discretion to notice obvious error need not be exercised when obvious error is not raised on appeal. |
|
Diop v. Altepeter, et al.
2025 ND 196 Highlight: An order denying Altepeter's motion to amend parenting time provisions in a divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) and (8). |
|
Clemenson v. Clemenson, et al.
2025 ND 195
Highlight: The domestic violence factor in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) requires the district court find credible evidence that domestic violence occurred. The court next must find an instance of (1) serious bodily injury, or (2) use of a dangerous weapon, or (3) a pattern of domestic violence within a reasonable time proximate to the proceeding. |
|
State v. Gores
2025 ND 194
Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a bench trial is affirmed because sufficient evidence supports the convictions. |
|
Boyda v. Boyda, et al.
2025 ND 193
Highlight: An existing parenting plan that creates conflict between a parent and the children can be a material change of circumstances for modification of the plan. |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6, ECJD
2025 ND 192 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Wallette
2025 ND 190
Highlight: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the North Dakota Constitution respectively prohibit infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" and "cruel or unusual punishments." A punishment in a non-capital case that is grossly disproportionate to the offense is cruel and unusual. The disproportionality principle is narrow. It forbids only extreme sentences. |
|
Smith v. State
2025 ND 189
Highlight: An attorney's representation of a criminal defendant fell below an objective |
|
State v. Miller
2025 ND 188
Highlight: Orders revoking probation and resentencing defendant for aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
|
State v. Miller
2025 ND 188
Highlight: Orders revoking probation and resentencing defendant for aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
|
Overton v. Overton
2025 ND 187
Highlight: Procedural due process does not require the district court to ensure incarcerated parties to civil litigation are present at hearings. |
|
State v. Barrett
2025 ND 186
Highlight: A jury's question or request to view evidence during deliberations shall take place in open court, unless the defendant agrees otherwise. |
|
State v. Watterud
2025 ND 185
Highlight: A victim's testimony about misconduct occurring over several years can be sufficient to support a conviction. |
|
McMahon v. Sanford, et al.
2025 ND 184
Highlight: A professional negligence action against a physician, nurse, or hospital generally requires an expert affidavit. Generally, decisions to provide medication, refuse to provide medication, or discharge a patient are medical decisions requiring the expertise of medical professionals. |
|
State v. Weber
2025 ND 183
Highlight: A party bears the burden to correctly label its motion as to inform the court of the relief sought. The district court did not err when it treated appellant's motion as a request for relief under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) based on its label. |
|
State v. Wilson
2025 ND 182
Highlight: A probationer's right to counsel does not arise from the Sixth Amendment but rather from North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f)(3)(A)(iii). Because of the statutory origin of a probationer's right to counsel at a revocation hearing, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding does not apply. |
|
Interest of M.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of A.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of C.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Heisler v. Reiger, et al.
2025 ND 180
Highlight: A post-trial motion invoking both N.D.R.Civ.P. 59 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) extends the time to file an appeal until notice of entry of the order disposing of the motion when the motion is brought within the time limits set forth in N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(c)(2) and N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3). |
|
Eggl v. State
2025 ND 179 Highlight: Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when his client chose to enter an open plea rather than accept the State's plea offer where counsel provided his client the options on how to proceed, explained the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and left the final decision on how to proceed to his client. |
|
State v. Chambers
2025 ND 178 Highlight: A criminal defendant failed to show his substantial rights were prejudiced by the potential ambiguity of pleading guilty to both a cognizable offense and a non-cognizable offense where there was a sufficient factual basis to support the guilty plea to the cognizable offense. The requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(B) did not apply where the criminal defendant entered an open plea rather than pleading guilty under a plea agreement in which the parties presented a joint recommendation on a proposed sentence. |
|
Schultz v. Schultz
2025 ND 177 Highlight: A district court divorce judgment awarding equal residential responsibility and distributing the marital estate is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Hernandez v. State
2025 ND 176 Highlight: A district court order dismissing an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
Corey v. Kenneh
2025 ND 175
Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is affirmed. |
|
State v. King
2025 ND 174
Highlight: Obvious error analysis requires consideration whether the district court clearly deviated from applicable current law. |
|
Olson v. Olson, et al.
2025 ND 173
Highlight: Certified questions from our state district courts have a more stringent standard than foreign courts, requiring the question to be determinative, because the parties have a right to appeal. |
|
State v. Santiago Agosto
2025 ND 172 Highlight: A district court criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Interest of Skorick
2025 ND 171 Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. |
|
Williamson v. Williamson
2025 ND 170 Highlight: A district court's judgment of divorce, order denying reconsideration, and order awarding attorney's fees is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (4), and (6). |
|
Thompson v. City of Adams, et al.
2025 ND 169 Highlight: A district court judgment granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al.
2025 ND 168
Highlight: Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Once a prima facie showing of valid service has been presented, the burden shifts to the defendant to present facts and documentation to establish service of process was insufficient. |
|
Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al.
2025 ND 168
Highlight: Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Once a prima facie showing of valid service has been presented, the burden shifts to the defendant to present facts and documentation to establish service of process was insufficient. |
|
State v. Jemal
2025 ND 167
Highlight: In probation revocation proceedings, a district court need not make factual findings to support its decision to revoke probation instead of choosing alternative sanctions. |
|
Sutherby v. Astanina, et al.
2025 ND 166 Highlight: A district court must credit a noncustodial parent for voluntary child support payments made during the pendency of an action when calculating past-due support obligations. When a court orders child support with a retroactive effective date, it must offset any past-due support owed by payments the noncustodial parent made to the custodial parent for the children's benefit during the relevant period. |
|
Rugland v. State
2025 ND 165 Highlight: An order denying a postconviction relief application is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of Hoff
2025 ND 164 Highlight: An order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is reversed and remanded for further findings. A district court's order finding an individual remains a sexually dangerous individual must contain sufficient and specific factual findings to show the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. |
|
State v. Moen
2025 ND 163
Highlight: The Confrontation Clause provides two protections to criminal defendants: the right to physically face someone who testifies against them, and the right to cross-examine. Although the right to confront witnesses is of a constitutional magnitude, it is not absolute and, in appropriate cases, may bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. |
|
State v. Guthmiller
2025 ND 162
Highlight: In criminal cases, errors not raised in the district court may be either forfeited errors or waived errors. Forfeiture is the failure to timely assert a right, while waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a right. |
|
Anderson v. Krueger
2025 ND 161
Highlight: A district court may enter a protection order when there has been a showing of actual or imminent domestic violence. A district court's finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. |
|
Diop v. Altepeter, et al.
2025 ND 160
Highlight: An appeal from an order finding the appellant in contempt of court in a divorce and parental responsibility action is dismissed as untimely. |
|
Duchaine v. State
2025 ND 159 Highlight: An order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Pittsley
2025 ND 158 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of child neglect is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Interest of K.I.B.
2025 ND 157
Highlight: The State is an aggrieved party under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-26 and may appeal a juvenile court's ruling exempting a juvenile adjudicated delinquent as a sexual offender from registration as a sexual offender. |
|
Goolsby v. Crosby
2025 ND 156 Highlight: A district court order denying a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Kraft v. State
2025 ND 155
Highlight: A motion to summarily dismiss an application for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09 is analogous to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When the State moves for summary dismissal, the motion is treated like a N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) motion subject to the response times in N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a), which is 14 days. |
|
Kraft v. State
2025 ND 155
Highlight: A motion to summarily dismiss an application for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09 is analogous to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When the State moves for summary dismissal, the motion is treated like a N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) motion subject to the response times in N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a), which is 14 days. |
|
State v. Benter
2025 ND 154 Highlight: In a criminal case, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or order being appealed. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional and cannot be waived by the appellate court. |
|
State v. Grewe
2025 ND 153 Highlight: An appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case was untimely where it was not filed within 30 days of the judgment of conviction and no motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal was filed. The appeal from an order denying a N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion was not appealable in the absence of a timely appeal from the judgment of conviction. The appeal is dismissed in accord with State v. Jenkins, 339 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 1983). |
|
Campbell v. State
2025 ND 152
Highlight: Under the Strickland test, an applicant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must prove two elements: (1) that their counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. |
|
Interest of J.L.
2025 ND 151 Highlight: An order finding children in need of protection and finding social services engaged in active efforts to place the children in an Indian home as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of J.L.
2025 ND 151 Highlight: An order finding children in need of protection and finding social services engaged in active efforts to place the children in an Indian home as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of J.L.
2025 ND 151 Highlight: An order finding children in need of protection and finding social services engaged in active efforts to place the children in an Indian home as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of J.L.
2025 ND 151 Highlight: An order finding children in need of protection and finding social services engaged in active efforts to place the children in an Indian home as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Vasquez
2025 ND 150 Highlight: A criminal judgment for preventing arrest or discharge of other duties, driving while license is suspended, and failure to transfer title is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Merkens
2025 ND 149 Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Merkens
2025 ND 149 Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Merkens
2025 ND 149 Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status. |
|
State v. Lee, et al.
2025 ND 148
Highlight: The Court exercises its authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. |
|
State v. Lee, et al.
2025 ND 148
Highlight: The Court exercises its authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. |
|
Northwest Landowners Association, et al. v. State, et al.
2025 ND 147
Highlight: There is a difference between a claim asserting a law is facially unconstitutional and a claim asserting an unconstitutional facial taking occurred. An ordinary facial challenge requires a plaintiff to prove the legislature exceeded a constitutional limitation when it enacted a law, and consequently the law on its face violates the constitution. A facial taking claim, on the other hand, is a specific type of facial challenge that asserts the mere enactment of a statute constitutes a taking. |
|
Garaas, et al. v. Continental Resources, et al.
2025 ND 146
Highlight: Deeds are interpreted in the same manner as contracts. In construing a deed, the primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the grantor's intent. |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, NEJD
2025 ND 144 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Devils Lake |
|
State v. Hendricks
2025 ND 143
Highlight: If a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on different grounds from the claim asserted on appeal, the issue was not preserved for review. |
|
Anne Carlsen Center v. LeFevre, et al.
2025 ND 142
Highlight: A petition for supervisory writ is granted. |
|
Tamm v. Gatzke, et al.
2025 ND 141
Highlight: An easement implied from pre-existing use requires unity of title of the dominant and servient tenement and a subsequent severance; apparent, permanent, and continuous use; and, the easement must be important or necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement. |
|
Interest of A.W.
2025 ND 140
Highlight: An aggrieved party, including the state or a subdivision of the state, may appeal from a final order, judgment, or decree of the juvenile court to the supreme court by filing written notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order, judgment, or decree, or within any further time the supreme court grants, after entry of the order, judgment, or decree. |
|
Juliuson v. Johnson, et al.
2025 ND 139
Highlight: Issues not briefed are deemed abandoned. |
|
State v. Erickstad
2025 ND 138
Highlight: A district court shall correct an illegal sentence at any time with notice. |
|
Rademacher v. State
2025 ND 137
Highlight: Issues not raised in an application for postconviction relief cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. |
|
Liquid Hospitality v. Bd. of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo
2025 ND 136 Highlight: A district court erred in finding Fargo Municipal Code § 25-1509.2 to be unconstitutionally vague. |
|
Axvig, et al. v. Czajkowski, et al.
2025 ND 135
Highlight: A district court misinterpreted a contract for deed by allowing a party to proceed with a cancellation action without first providing the other party notice of the default and time to cure the default as required by the contract. |
|
State v. Berkley
2025 ND 134
Highlight: We interpret statutes to give meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence, and do not adopt a construction which would render part of the statute mere surplusage. Our primary goal when interpreting statutes is to determine the Legislature's intended meaning. |
|
State v. Solomon
2025 ND 133
Highlight: Under the speedy trial statute, trials must begin within 90 days of invoking this right, unless the court finds "good cause" for delay. Courts consider four factors when determining good cause: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) whether the defendant asserted the right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. |
|
WSI v. Boechler, et al.
2025 ND 132
Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-26.1, a president of a corporation is not personally liable for penalties imposed due to a failure to file payroll reports. |
|
Bang, et al. v. Continental Resources
2025 ND 131
Highlight: Under a usual oil and gas lease, the lessee, in developing the leased premises, is entitled to use of the land reasonably necessary in producing the oil. Even though the surface rights of the lessee may arise by implication, it is important to note that lessee's rights are primarily governed by the specific grant of rights in the lease. |
|
State v. Kennedy
2025 ND 130
Highlight: A party can invite error during voir dire. |
|
Carvalho v. Carvalho, et al.
2025 ND 129
Highlight: A district court must perform an adequate analysis for an appellate court to determine the basis for its decision. |