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.
241 - 250 of 12235 results
|
Byrd v. State
2025 ND 55
Highlight: A district court order and judgment denying an application for postconviction relief is affirmed. |
|
State v. Rolland
2025 ND 54 Highlight: Whether a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial is a question of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. When a court has found a defendant facing felony charges to be unfit to proceed, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-04-08 contemplates attempted rehabilitation. |
|
Ceynar v. Ceynar
2025 ND 53
Highlight: In general, a lengthy marriage supports an equal division of all marital assets. The origin of the property, such as inheritance, is only one factor to consider under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. |
|
State v. Medina
2025 ND 52 Highlight: An order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Hersha v. State
2025 ND 51 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Zent v. NDDHHS
2025 ND 50
Highlight: The Court affirms the Department of Health and Human Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation decision to discontinue vocational rehabilitation services. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
2025 ND 49 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
|
Anderson v. Foss, et al.
2025 ND 48
Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion when setting the commencement date for the new child support obligation one year from the date of the motion to modify. |
|
Higgins, et al. v. Lund, et al.
2025 ND 47
Highlight: A judgment which adjudicates all claims and does not anticipate or direct further action is appealable. |
|
State v. Williams
2025 ND 46
Highlight: A Brady violation is established when the defendant proves the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant, the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence, the prosecution suppressed the evidence, and a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed. |