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.
12401 - 12450 of 12475 results
|
Bertsch v. Zahn
141 N.W.2d 792 |
|
Writh v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
141 N.W.2d 790 |
|
Beck v. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
141 N.W.2d 784 |
|
Putnam v. Dickinson
142 N.W.2d 111 |
|
United Accounts v. Palmer
141 N.W.2d 472 |
|
Nord v. Guy
141 N.W.2d 395 |
|
Hook v. Crary
142 N.W.2d 140 |
|
Mikkelson v. Risovi
141 N.W.2d 150 |
|
Johnson v. Davis
140 N.W.2d 703 |
|
Schmidt v. Frank
140 N.W.2d 588 |
|
Heid v. Shafer
140 N.W.2d 584 |
|
Cokins v. Frandsen
141 N.W.2d 796 |
|
Sittner v. Mistelski
140 N.W.2d 360 |
|
Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc.
140 N.W.2d 349 |
|
Julson v. Loyal Order of Moose
140 N.W.2d 039 |
|
Quinn Dist. Co. v. North Hill Bowl, Inc., et al.
139 N.W.2d 860 |
|
Kuntz v. N.D. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
139 N.W.2d 525 |
|
Parceluk v. Knudtson
139 N.W.2d 864 |
|
Fischer v. Fischer
139 N.W.2d 845 |
|
Hoffman v. Berry
139 N.W.2d 529 |
|
Manock v. Donley
139 N.W.2d 391 |
|
Fredereickson v. Burleigh County, et al.
139 N.W.2d 250 |
|
City of Grand Forks v. Grand Forks County
139 N.W.2d 242 |
|
Bankers v. Bankers
139 N.W.2d 143 |
|
State v. Johnson
139 N.W.2d 157 |
|
Bender v. N.D. Workmen's Comp. Bureau
139 N.W.2d 150 |
|
Berry v. Heinz
139 N.W.2d 145 |
|
Wilson v. City of Fargo
141 N.W.2d 727 |
|
Newman v. Hjelle, et al.
133 N.W.2d 549 |
|
Sperle v. Weigel
130 N.W.2d 315 |
|
Kessler v. Thompson
075 N.W.2d 172 |
|
Haman v. McHenry County, et al.
072 N.W.2d 630 |
|
Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al.
|
|
Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al.
|
|
Thompson v. City of Adams, et al.
|
|
Interest of Skorick
|
|
State v. Santiago Agosto
|
|
Hernandez v. State
|
|
Olson v. Olson, et al.
|
|
Sutherby v. Astanina, et al.
|
|
State v. Krebs
|
|
Riemers v. State
2007 ND App4
Highlight: A judgment of dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted will be affirmed by an appellate court if it cannot discern a potential for proof to support the claim. |
|
Riemers v. State
2007 ND App3
Highlight: Factual assertions in a brief do not raise an issue of material fact satisfying Rule 56(e) for purposes of resisting a motion for summary judgment. |
|
Riemers, et al. v. State, et al.
2007 ND App2
Highlight: A judge may not be held liable for any judicial act. |
|
Riemers v. State of North Dakota, et al.
2007 ND App1
Highlight: Summary judgment is appropriate if the information available to the trial court does not establish a genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
|
Interest of K.N.H., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2005 ND App9 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating a father's parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Gosbee v. Martinson, et al.
2005 ND App10
Highlight: Rule 54(e)(1), N.D.R.Civ.P., which provides that the trial court shall schedule a hearing when objections to costs and disbursements are filed, is mandatory and affords no discretion to the trial court to dispense with the required hearing unless it is expressly waived by the parties. |
|
Johnson v. State (Consolidated w/20050029)
2005 ND App8
Highlight: An application for post-conviction relief may be denied on the grounds of res judicata and misuse of process. |
|
Kerzmann v. Burleigh County Social Services
2005 ND App7 Highlight: The district court's dismissal of an attempted appeal because the appeal from an administrative law judge's decision affirming an agency employment termination was not properly perfected under N.D.C.C. 28-32-42 is summarily affirmed. |
|
State v. Bernstein
2005 ND App6
Highlight: To satisfy the knowledge element of criminal trespass under N.D.C.C. 12.1-22-03(3), the State must prove that the defendant knew or had a firm belief, unaccompanied by substantial doubt, that he was not licensed or privileged to be on the property. |