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.
1901 - 2000 of 12418 results
|
WSI v. Sandberg, et al.
2019 ND 198
Highlight: Pain is a symptom and may be considered in determining whether there is a substantial acceleration or substantial worsening of a preexisting injury, disease, or other condition, but pain alone is not a substantial acceleration or substantial worsening. |
|
Munson v. Indigo Acquisition Holdings, LLC, et al.
2019 ND 197
Highlight: A Stock Purchase Agreement submitted with the defendant’s answer qualifies as a “record” of a transaction under N.D.C.C. § 10-04-06(11). |
|
Estate of Hall
2019 ND 196
Highlight: The surviving spouse of a decedent may claim an elective share of the decedent’s testate or intestate estate. |
|
Smithberg v. Smithberg, et al.
2019 ND 195
Highlight: Courts do not strive to find irreconcilable conflicts between statutory provisions. |
|
State v. Thomas
2019 ND 194
Highlight: Granting a mistrial is an extreme remedy and should only be resorted to when a fundamental defect or occurrence in the trial proceedings exists that makes it evident that further proceedings would be productive of manifest injustice. |
|
Newfield Exploration Company, et al. v. State, et al.
2019 ND 193
Highlight: District court erred in its interpretation of an oil and gas lease. |
|
State v. Blaskowski
2019 ND 192 Highlight: A chemical breath test was not “fairly administered” under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07 because evidence failed to establish compliance with the approved method for conducting the test. |
|
State v. Norton
2019 ND 191
Highlight: The district court did not err by failing to require the State to name a specific individual who was threatened to establish a prima facie case of terrorizing. |
|
McCarthy v. Getz
2019 ND 190
Highlight: A patient’s suicide is an objectively obvious fact that the goal of psychological treatment for symptoms relating to anxiety and depression had not been reached as planned and is sufficient to put parents with knowledge that their child was receiving treatment on notice that a potential claim against the psychological treatment provider exists. |
|
Tarver v. Tarver
2019 ND 189
Highlight: District court did not err in not enforcing conditional stipulation read onto the record. |
|
State v. Shipton (consol. w/ 20190041)
2019 ND 188
Highlight: This Court will treat a petition for writ of error coram nobis as one for post-conviction relief under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. |
|
Caster v. State
2019 ND 187
Highlight: District court order summarily denying application for post-conviction relief remanded with instructions for further proceedings. |
|
Wilkens v. Westby
2019 ND 186 Highlight: Death does not make a resident absent from the state for six months or more post-accident for purposes of service under North Dakota’s nonresident motorist statute, N.D.C.C. § 39-01-11. |
|
Klein v. Estate of Luithle
2019 ND 185 Highlight: Although a district court judge has broad discretion when admitting or excluding expert witness testimony, it is an abuse of discretion to strike all of an expert witness’s testimony sua sponte when some of the testimony is admissible. |
|
Twete v. Mullin, et al.
2019 ND 184
Highlight: A district court’s denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. |
|
State v. Hendrickson
2019 ND 183 Highlight: Information obtained from a 911 caller may provide a sufficient factual basis to raise a reasonable and articulable suspicion of potential criminal activity to justify an investigatory stop. |
|
State v. West
2019 ND 182 Highlight: The crime of conspiracy to “knowingly” commit murder is not a cognizable crime. Charging a defendant with such a crime is obvious error. |
|
State v. Swanson
2019 ND 181
Highlight: Conspiracy to commit a “knowing” murder is a non-cognizable offense. |
|
Minyard v. Lindseth
2019 ND 180
Highlight: For child support purposes, an obligor’s income must be sufficiently documented through the use of tax returns, current wage statements, and other information. |
|
State v. Welch
2019 ND 179 Highlight: A district court does not abuse its discretion when in a criminal judgment it describes an inchoate crime by reference to both Chapter 12.1-06 and the statute specifying the underlying criminal offense. |
|
Burden v. State
2019 ND 178
Highlight: A motion for summary disposition on the pleadings in a post-conviction proceeding is analogous to a N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion and looks at the application in the light most favorable to the applicant and accepts well-pleaded allegations as true. |
|
Lizakowski v. Lizakowski
2019 ND 177
Highlight: In a divorce action, a spouse’s separate property, whether inherited or otherwise, must be included in the marital estate, and property brought into a marriage or acquired by gift or inheritance by one spouse may not be set aside to that spouse. |
|
State v. Wills
2019 ND 176
Highlight: Investigative detention may continue only as long as reasonably necessary to conduct duties resulting from a traffic stop and to issue a warning or citation. |
|
State v. Lyons
2019 ND 175
Highlight: A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor. |
|
State v. Norton
2019 ND 174 Highlight: Individuals convicted of specified offenses against children have a statutory duty to register as offenders against children regardless of a prior court order or instructions by a court to register. |
|
State v. Overholt
2019 ND 173
Highlight: For purpose of appeal, an order deferring imposition of sentence is equivalent to a judgment under N.D.R.Crim.P. 32(b). |
|
French v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2019 ND 172
Highlight: The Department’s driving record, including its notations, for a driver is a regularly kept record and is prima facie evidence of its contents. |
|
W.C. v. J.H., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 171
Highlight: Parties may obtain discovery regarding nonprivileged matters that are relevant to a party’s claim. |
|
Markegard v. Willoughby
2019 ND 170
Highlight: A party moving to terminate spousal support under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(3) has the initial burden to prove habitual cohabitation for a period of one year or more, and the party opposing the motion has the burden to prove any exceptions apply. |
|
Matter of R.A.S. (Confidential)
2019 ND 169
Highlight: The district court must state the specific factual findings used as a base for determining an individual has serious difficulty controlling personal behavior, and errs as a matter of law if the findings are insufficient or does not support the legal conclusion. |
|
Taszarek, et al. v. Lakeview Excavating, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 168
Highlight: A district court’s decision on whether to pierce a corporation’s corporate veil is heavily fact-specific. |
|
Morris v. State
2019 ND 166
Highlight: Accomplice to commit extreme indifference murder is a cognizable offense. |
|
Johnston Land Company, LLC v. Sorenson, et al.
2019 ND 165
Highlight: A party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot simply rely on the pleadings or on unsupported allegations, but must present competent admissible evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact in support of their claim. |
|
State v. Watson (Consolidated w/20180295 & 20180296)
2019 ND 164 Highlight: The district court must find good cause to delay a trial more than ninety days after the defendant has been arraigned and timely elected a right to a speedy trial under N.D.C.C. § 29-19-02. |
|
State v. Hollis
2019 ND 163
Highlight: A police officer may take an apparently intoxicated individual to a jail for detoxification if the officer determines the person constitutes a danger to himself or others. |
|
State v. Landrus
2019 ND 162
Highlight: A district court’s use of a defense of property jury instruction did not improperly shift the burden of the State to disprove the absence of self-defense. |
|
City of West Fargo v. Williams
2019 ND 161
Highlight: The right to an additional independent test under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 only arises when the driver submits to the chemical test requested by law enforcement. |
|
Klundt v. Benjamin
2019 ND 160
Highlight: The district court’s findings on the best interest factors, as well as its decision regarding primary residential responsibility, were not clearly erroneous. |
|
State v. Muhammad
2019 ND 159
Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the recordings of an interrogation without playing the recordings in their entirety. |
|
Interiors by France v. Mitzel Contractors, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 158 Highlight: An award of attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff under N.D.C.C. § 27-08.1-04 does not extend to parties who were not part of the original small claims court proceedings. |
|
State v. Pemberton (consolidated w/ 20180415)
2019 ND 157
Highlight: Defendant failed to support his claim that a probable cause finding for a non-cognizable offense was obvious error. |
|
Hoffman v. Jevne
2019 ND 156
Highlight: If a party bringing a motion under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 timely requests oral argument, the request must be granted. |
|
Wolt v. Wolt, et al.
2019 ND 155
Highlight: Although N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(10) describes activities that are considered self-employment, the determination of a self-employed individual’s income is governed by N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-05. |
|
Puklich v. Puklich, et al.
2019 ND 154
Highlight: A district court’s findings on valuation of property will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. |
|
Bridgeford v. Sorel
2019 ND 153
Highlight: An officer’s actions remained within the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment when he knocked on the car window of an individual who appeared to be sleeping with the car running in a gas station parking lot. |
|
State v. Taylor
2019 ND 152 Highlight: Appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
City of Dickinson v. Vaagen
2019 ND 151
Highlight: A criminal judgment finding defendant guilty of driving under the influence is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b). |
|
Schatz v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2019 ND 150 Highlight: District court’s judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation decision suspending driving privileges is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Everett v. State
2019 ND 149
Highlight: In post-conviction relief proceedings, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny default judgment when a petitioner cannot show he suffered any prejudice from the State's untimely response. |
|
Blackcloud v. State
2019 ND 148
Highlight: A district court order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Frontier Fiscal Services LLC v. Pinky's Aggregates, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 147
Highlight: The burden of proof ordinarily rests with the party who possesses the facts on the issue in dispute. |
|
Atkins v. State
2019 ND 146
Highlight: An applicant for post-conviction relief should have 14 days to respond to a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2). |
|
State v. Atkins
2019 ND 145
Highlight: A defendant may not avoid the procedures of the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act by designating his motion under a rule of criminal procedure or by filing his motion in his criminal file, rather than filing as a new action for post-conviction relief. |
|
Swenson, et al. v. Mahlum, et al.
2019 ND 144
Highlight: Order and judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and defendant’s third-party claims without prejudice was appealable because plaintiff’s claims were adjudicated and third-party claims were dependent on plaintiff’s claims. |
|
James Vault & Precast Co., et al. v. B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 143 Highlight: A contractual provision purporting to exempt anyone from responsibility for a willful or negligent violation of the law is against the policy of law and not enforceable. |
|
Lee v. Lee
2019 ND 142
Highlight: The district court’s property valuations were not clearly erroneous. |
|
Estate of Hogen
2019 ND 141
Highlight: A probate court has inherent authority to control its docket and to protect its jurisdiction and judgments, the integrity of the court, and the orderly and expeditious administration of justice, and may award attorney fees to further that end. |
|
State v. Peterson
2019 ND 140
Highlight: A district court found a sufficient factual basis to support the defendant’s guilty plea based on the record and the State’s offer of proof. |
|
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Behm
2019 ND 139
Highlight: Where eminent domain is exercised by a utility business, condemnation for service to a single industrial customer does not forestall a finding that the taking is for a public use. |
|
State v. Vetter
2019 ND 138
Highlight: A traffic stop is not expanded by incidental questions the officer asks without reasonable suspicion so long as they occur prior to the completion of the stop and the officer does not deliberately delay completion of the stop. |
|
Morales v. State
2019 ND 137
Highlight: Summary dismissal of a post-conviction application for ineffective assistance of counsel is appropriate if the applicant does not claim that, but for his attorney’s errors, he would have insisted on going to trial. |
|
Watford City Lodging LLC v. Miskin
2019 ND 136
Highlight: In summary eviction proceedings, the right to possession of the property is the only fact that can be litigated unless damages or rent is claimed. |
|
Olson v. State
2019 ND 135
Highlight: Accomplice to murder under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is a cognizable offense under North Dakota law. |
|
State v. Vigen
2019 ND 134 Highlight: An informed consent advisory omitting statutory language regarding refusal to submit to a urine test does not comply with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a). |
|
Ortega v. Sanford Bismarck, et al.
2019 ND 133
Highlight: The purpose of the expert opinion affidavit requirement under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46 is to screen totally unsupported claims and to prevent protracted litigation when a medical malpractice plaintiff cannot substantiate a basis for the claim. |
|
Sutton v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation
2019 ND 132
Highlight: Checking the boxes denoting an odor of alcohol and refusal of chemical testing, in combination with a note in the explanation box stating the driver declined field sobriety tests, is sufficient to render the Report and Notice Form adequate under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04. |
|
Bride v. Trinity Hospital, et al.
2019 ND 131
Highlight: A dismissal without prejudice is appealable if the statute of limitations has expired on the plaintiff’s claim, foreclosing further litigation in this state. |
|
Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Steffes, et al.
2019 ND 130
Highlight: An order granting a new trial is not reviewable without N.D.Civ.P. 54(b) certification. |
|
Heartland State Bank v. Larson, et al.
2019 ND 129
Highlight: A creditor must strictly comply with the statutory provisions relating to the foreclosure of a mortgage, including the provisions for notice before foreclosure. |
|
Twin City Technical LLC, et al. v. Williams County, et al.
2019 ND 128
Highlight: A county’s lease of minerals executed in violation of mandatory competitive bidding statutes renders the lease invalid. |
|
Jensen v. State
2019 ND 126
Highlight: A Rule 11(d) motion to withdraw a guilty plea, filed after entry of the criminal judgment and a stipulated dismissal of the direct appeal, is not a critical stage of the proceeding affording the movant the constitutional guarantee to counsel nor a stage of the proceeding requiring counsel under N.D.R.Crim.P. 44(a). |
|
Matter of J.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 125 Highlight: The State did not establish clear and convincing evidence of a nexus between J.M.’s disorder and his sexual dangerousness to others. |
|
Great Plains Royalty Corporation v. Earl Schwartz Company, et al.
2019 ND 124
Highlight: Collateral estoppel generally forecloses relitigation, in a second action based on a different claim, of a particular issue of either fact or law which was litigated and determined in a prior suit. |
|
State v. Craig
2019 ND 123
Highlight: A district court abused its discretion by scheduling a hearing on defendant’s motion and then cancelling the hearing without explanation leaving the defendant unable to complete a hearing request under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(3) on his own. |
|
State v. Gardner
2019 ND 122
Highlight: A claimant neither needs to be the addressee nor needs to live at the address on a package to claim a search and seizure right to the package. A claimant only needs to show a possessory interest in the package. |
|
Ali v. State
2019 ND 121 Highlight: District court’s finding that an application for post-conviction relief failed to establish counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness was not clearly erroneous. |
|
Curtiss v. State
2019 ND 120 Highlight: A district court’s order denying application for post-conviction relief and order denying motions for reconsideration and to correct a sentence are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), (6), and (7). |
|
Lavallie v. State
2019 ND 119 Highlight: A district court order summarily dismissing a post-conviction relief application is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of F.M.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 118 Highlight: Continuing treatment order summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Johnson
2019 ND 117 Highlight: A district court’s order denying a motion to return bond is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Keller v. State
2019 ND 116 Highlight: Summary affirmance of district court’s denial of post-conviction relief. |
|
Interest of T.A.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 115 Highlight: The case is remanded for additional findings of fact on whether a person was likely to reoffend and had serious difficulty controlling behavior, as required to deny sex offender discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. |
|
Ayling v. Sens, et al.
2019 ND 114
Highlight: An action barred by a statute of limitations generally is dismissed under the summary judgment standards of N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. |
|
Condon v. St. Alexius Medical Center, et al.
2019 ND 113
Highlight: Section 32-42-02, N.D.C.C., does not violate the equal-protection provisions of N.D. Const. art. I, § 21. |
|
Tschider v. Tschider, et al.
2019 ND 112
Highlight: A premarital agreement may be unenforceable if it is unconscionable at the time of execution, at the time of separation or marital dissolution, or at the time of enforcement. |
|
Thompson, et al. v. Johnson
2019 ND 111 Highlight: District court erred on remand by finding child support obligor underemployed without explaining why its prior determination the obligor had a gross annual income of $171,560.66 and net annual income of $113,916 was incorrect. |
|
Interest of K.S.D. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated with 20180261)
2019 ND 110
Highlight: Motion to withdraw consent to termination of parental rights was untimely under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-45(6) because it was made more than thirty days after the order terminating parental rights was issued. |
|
Rhodenbaugh v. Rhodenbaugh
2019 ND 109
Highlight: Interlocutory orders in an action are merged into the final judgment and may be reviewed on appeal of the judgment. |
|
State v. Valles
2019 ND 108 Highlight: For a warrantless search or seizure to fall into the abandonment exception, the State must show evidence of abandonment was present through objective facts known to the officer at the time of the search or seizure. Further, even when a cell phone is considered abandoned, a search of its contents is always considered unreasonable and thus is not permitted without a warrant. |
|
Estate of Bartelson
2019 ND 107 Highlight: An appeal only from the denial of a motion for reconsideration does not permit the appellant to attack the underlying order from which the appeal could have been taken but was not brought. |
|
State v. Stenhoff
2019 ND 106
Highlight: Search of supervised probationer’s residence was constitutional where the probationer was incarcerated due to a probation violation, the supervised probation conditions included a search clause, and law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion unlawful activity was afoot due to a child’s statement alluding to the presence of drugs at the probationer’s residence. |
|
State v. Odum
2019 ND 105
Highlight: Under the totality of the circumstances, probable cause existed for a search warrant based on evidence found during garbage search. |
|
Lupo v. McNeeley, et al.
2019 ND 104 Highlight: The statute of limitations of a claim for relief is not tolled by the defendant’s absence from the state under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-32 when the state’s courts can obtain jurisdiction by completing service of process by publication. |
|
Garcia v. State
2019 ND 103 Highlight: A finalized criminal sentence may not be reduced by statute. |
|
WSI v. Eight Ball Trucking, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 102
Highlight: A summary judgment entered after a defendant fails to respond to the motion for summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits and not a default judgment. |
|
State v. Mohamud
2019 ND 101
Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss for undue delay. |
|
Lavallie v. State
2019 ND 100 Highlight: District court erred by reducing a criminal sentence based on a statute enacted after the conviction had been finalized. |
|
State v. Comes
2019 ND 99 Highlight: Rule 35, N.D.R.Crim.P., requires notice of intent to correct a sentence be given to the parties. |
|
Sabo, et al. v. Job Service
2019 ND 98
Highlight: The doctrine of administrative res judicata prevents collateral attacks on administrative agency final orders. |
|
Pavlicek v. American Steel Systems, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 97
Highlight: A district court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue. |