Search Tips

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.

261 - 270 of 12359 results

Brown v. State 2024 ND 95
Docket No.: 20230364
Filing Date: 5/16/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The definition of official detention does not preclude custody while on probation.

An unambiguous sentence pronouncement controls over an ambiguous sentence, whether oral or written.

When there is an ambiguity between two sentences, the record must be examined to determine the district court's intent.

Jung v. State 2024 ND 94
Docket No.: 20240031
Filing Date: 5/16/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: To succeed on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must show: (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
When a defendant pleads guilty on the advice of counsel, the defendant may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea.

State v. Castleman 2024 ND 93
Docket No.: 20230371
Filing Date: 5/16/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Other
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 14 a defendant must show more than naked assertions that prejudice may occur based on the number of offenses being charged and instead must show he suffered substantial prejudice as a result of the joinder.

Interest of S.M.F. 2024 ND 92
Docket No.: 20240097
Filing Date: 5/16/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Solberg v. Hennessy 2024 ND 91
Docket No.: 20230289
Filing Date: 5/16/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Adverse or erroneous rulings do not, by themselves, demonstrate bias. Rather, for recusal to be warranted, a judge must be partial or there must be some external influence that creates an appearance of impropriety.

Orders denying motions for relief from judgment and for reconsideration are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4). Double costs and attorney's fees are awarded for defending this frivolous appeal.

Rivera-Rieffel v. State 2024 ND 90
Docket No.: 20230402
Filing Date: 5/16/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Eggl 2024 ND 89
Docket No.: 20230376
Filing Date: 5/16/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment sentencing a defendant to 80 years imprisonment with 20 years suspended and 10 years supervised probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA, et al. 2024 ND 88
Docket No.: 20230195
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Wholesale adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is disapproved.

District courts retain authority to revisit interlocutory orders until entry of final judgment.

Under the doctrine of merger, the provisions of an executory contract merge into an instrument conveying real property. Absent fraud or mistake, the conveying instrument alone governs determination of the rights of the parties to the transaction.

Recordation of a granting instrument is not necessary to effect a conveyance. Nor is it necessary for a plaintiff to present the original conveying instrument to prevail in quiet title action. In a quiet title action ownership may be established through evidence that a conveying instrument was delivered but subsequently lost.
The equitable defense of laches may be available when a party delays enforcing his rights and a change in conditions during the delay results in prejudice to an adverse party.

To have standing to litigate an issue a party must have suffered some injury from the putatively illegal action and the party must assert his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim on the legal rights and interests of third parties.

Parties may contract to a fee recovery standard that is either looser or stricter than statutory standards.

State v. Williams 2024 ND 87
Docket No.: 20230300
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

Glaum v. State 2024 ND 86
Docket No.: 20230236
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Rule 58 of the North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rules addresses vexatious litigation. Litigation means any civil or disciplinary action or proceeding, including any appeal from an administrative agency, any review of a referee order by the district court, and any appeal to the supreme court. Rule 58 does not apply to criminal actions or documents filed in criminal actions.

An appeal from a vexatious litigant pre-filing order must be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 60 days of service of notice of entry of the order. When there is no service of notice of entry of the order or evidence of actual knowledge of entry, the time for filing a notice of appeal does not begin to run.

A presiding judge may determine a person is a vexatious litigant based on the finding that in the immediately preceding seven-year period the person has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained as a self-represented party at least three litigations that have been finally determined adversely to that person.

If a response to the proposed pre-filing order is filed, the presiding judge may, in the judge's discretion, grant a hearing on the proposed order.

An appellant is precluded from challenging an order that was not appealed from in the notice of appeal and raising an issue for the first time on appeal.

Page 27 of 1236