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.
1401 - 1450 of 12359 results
|
Interest of A.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2021 ND 67 Highlight: Juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
State v. Rennie
2021 ND 66 Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion by not dismissing the case for failure to timely produce discovery materials. |
|
Interest of F.M.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2021 ND 65 Highlight: A district court’s continuing treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of S.R. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/20200215)
2021 ND 64 Highlight: A juvenile court’s findings of continued deprivation and orders keeping two children in the custody of Three Rivers Human Service Zone are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Kaspari v. Kaspari
2021 ND 63 Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(1), an award of spousal support must be for “a limited period of time.” An award of spousal support “until death or remarriage” does not comply with N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(1) because it is indefinite and lacks a fixed duration. |
|
Great Plains Royalty Corp. v. Earl Schwartz Co., et al.
2021 ND 62
Highlight: Standing is the concept used to determine whether a party is sufficiently affected to ensure a justiciable controversy exists. |
|
State v. Bee
2021 ND 61
Highlight: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures. But a warrantless search is not unreasonable if the search of the home falls under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. |
|
State v. Glasser (consolidated w/20200221)
2021 ND 60 Highlight: Any attempt by the trial court to amend or modify a final judgment is void unless it is made upon grounds provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment. |
|
Command Center v. Renewable Resources, et al.
2021 ND 59
Highlight: In an appeal from a bench trial, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of law are fully reviewable. |
|
Somerset Court, et al. v. Burgum, et al.
2021 ND 58
Highlight: A party waives an issue by not providing supporting arguments, reasoning, or citations to relevant legal authority. |
|
Ryberg, et al. v. Landsiedel
2021 ND 56
Highlight: A settlement agreement is a contract between parties, and thus contract law applies. |
|
State v. Richter
2021 ND 55 Highlight: Attempted promotion of obscenity to minors is not a cognizable offense. |
|
State v. Neugebauer
2021 ND 54
Highlight: Once a judgment is final, the district court generally loses jurisdiction to alter, amend, or modify that judgment. Unless grounds are provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment, any attempt by the district court to amend or modify a final judgment is void. |
|
Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bear Creek Gravel, et al.
2021 ND 53
Highlight: Whether a vehicle has been furnished for regular use is a conclusion of fact. |
|
State v. Borland
2021 ND 52
Highlight: A defendant waives the constitutional protection against being placed in double jeopardy after a verdict or judgment against them is set aside at their own instance, either by motion in trial court or upon successful appeal. |
|
Tebay v. State (consolidated w/ 20200317)
2021 ND 51
Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
Gerving v. Gerving
2021 ND 50 |
|
State v. Walbert
2021 ND 49
Highlight: Courts possess broad power to control their courtrooms, minimize disruptive behavior, and maintain security. |
|
Gil v. WSI
2021 ND 48 Highlight: Timely filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and procedural rules may not be used to enlarge periods of time conferring jurisdiction that are definitely fixed by statute. |
|
Saucedo v. State
2021 ND 47 Highlight: An order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Stands
2021 ND 46
Highlight: Sufficient competent evidence existed to show a defendant consented to a search of his person when he shrugged, mumbled, nodded, and lifted his hands. |
|
Campbell v. State
2021 ND 45
Highlight: The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel presents a mixed question of law and fact and is fully reviewable on appeal. |
|
Solberg v. McKennett
2021 ND 44
Highlight: Determining when a cause of action accrues is normally a question of fact, but it becomes a question of law when the material facts are undisputed. |
|
Breeze v. NDDOT
2021 ND 43 Highlight: An officer must be in an immediate pursuit of a person who is endeavoring to avoid arrest for hot pursuit to apply. |
|
State v. Moore (consolidated w/20200081 & 20200082)
2021 ND 42
Highlight: A district court should not automatically approve public trial waivers without considering the broader interests in open courts and public trials by conducting pre-closure Waller analysis. A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial may be waived if the record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. A defendant’s failure to object or acquiescence to a trial closure without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver will be reviewed on appeal as a forfeited error subject only to obvious error review. |
|
State v. Martinez
2021 ND 42
Highlight: A district court should not automatically approve public trial waivers without considering the broader interests in open courts and public trials by conducting pre-closure Waller analysis. A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial may be waived if the record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. A defendant’s failure to object or acquiescence to a trial closure without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver will be reviewed on appeal as a forfeited error subject only to obvious error review. |
|
State v. Molina
2021 ND 41 Highlight: A district court order denying a petition for writ of prohibition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Interest of L.T.D. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated w/20210035)
2021 ND 40 Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
|
WSI v. Sandberg, et al.
2021 ND 39
Highlight: Claimants must prove by a preponderance of evidence that they have sustained a compensable injury and are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. |
|
Lund v. Swanson, et al.
2021 ND 38
Highlight: A settlement agreement is a contract between parties, and thus contract law applies. |
|
Friesz v. State
2021 ND 37 Highlight: In a post-conviction relief proceeding, a petitioner is entitled to a fourteen-day window to respond to a request for dismissal of their petition for post-conviction relief. |
|
WSI v. Cherokee Services Group, et al.
2021 ND 36
Highlight: Tribal sovereign immunity protects Indian tribes against lawsuits, even ones brought by the State. |
|
AE2S Construction v. Hellervik Oilfield Technologies, et al.
2021 ND 35
Highlight: An appearance for purposes of N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a) is any response sufficient to give the plaintiff or his or her attorney notice of an intent to contest the claim. |
|
Atkins v. State
2021 ND 34
Highlight: If an applicant files a N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief following an order denying post-conviction relief, the motion will be treated as another post-conviction relief application and will not toll the time for appealing the order denying post-conviction relief. |
|
Orwig v. Orwig (consolidated w/20200124)
2021 ND 33
Highlight: In a court trial, any error in admitting a deposition is harmless unless the deposition testimony induced the court to make an essential finding which would not otherwise have been made or otherwise affected a party’s substantial rights. |
|
Paulson v. Paulson
2021 ND 32 Highlight: A district court’s decision on whether to vacate a divorce judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. A party seeking to vacate a divorce judgment entered pursuant to a settlement agreement under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. When considering whether a divorce judgment based on a settlement agreement should be vacated, the district court should inquire: (1) whether the agreement is free from mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; and (2) whether the agreement is unconscionable. The party seeking relief from judgment based on fraud has the burden to establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Unconscionability may be considered as a ground for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). To vacate a divorce judgment as unconscionable, there must be a showing of both procedural and substantive unconscionability. A disparate settlement is not necessarily substantively unconscionable, particularly in a short-term marriage |
|
Burr v. N.D. State Board of Dental Examiners
2021 ND 31 Highlight: The test we apply when determining governmental liability and discretionary acts distinguishes between immune discretionary acts and non-immune ministerial acts. In examining the nature of the challenged conduct, the first inquiry a court must consider is whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting employee. Even if ‘the challenged conduct involves an element of judgment or choice, the second inquiry a court must consider is whether that judgment or choice is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield. |
|
Oden v. Minot Builders Supply, et al.
2021 ND 30
Highlight: Foreign judgments are not entitled to full faith and credit under certain circumstances such as when the rendering court lacks jurisdiction. |
|
Grand Prairie Agriculture v. Pelican Township Board of Supervisors
2021 ND 29
Highlight: A township’s decision on a petition for approval of a proposed site for an animal feeding operation may be reversed on appeal if the township misinterprets or misapplies the law. |
|
Whetsel v. State
2021 ND 28
Highlight: Once the State has responded to a petition for post-conviction relief, sua sponte summary disposition by the court is no longer available, and the State is required to move for summary disposition. |
|
Thompson-Widmer v. Larson, et al.
2021 ND 27
Highlight: A publication or communication must be false to be defamatory. |
|
McClintock v. NDDOT
2021 ND 26
Highlight: To facilitate compliance with statutory requirements and the foundational element requiring a test be fairly administered, the state toxicologist has established approved methods for administering chemical breath tests. |
|
State v. Spillum
2021 ND 25
Highlight: If a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on specified grounds, and those grounds did not include the claim on appeal, the defendant does not preserve that issue for this Court’s review. |
|
Davis v. Davis, et al.
2021 ND 24
Highlight: Failure to provide a non-moving party the allotted time to respond under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2) is a misapplication of law. |
|
Stoddard v. Singer
2021 ND 23
Highlight: A district court’s findings of fact will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. |
|
Estate of Johnson
2021 ND 22
Highlight: In an informal, unsupervised probate, an order settling all claims of one claimant is final, even if there are pending claims by other claimants. |
|
Swanson v. Larson, et al.
2021 ND 0216
Highlight: Generally, when a contract is silent as to its duration, it is terminable at will by either party. |
|
Swanson v. Larson, et al.
2021 ND 0216 |
|
State v. Youngbird
2021 ND 21
Highlight: A district court has jurisdiction to amend a criminal judgment to include restitution when the State files the motion to amend within the time limit imposed by the court during sentencing. |
|
Johnson v. Menard
2021 ND 19
Highlight: During trial, a party can make a motion for judgment as a matter of law alleging insufficient evidence under N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(a). However, after the jury returns its verdict the party must renew the motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(b) to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence issue for review on appeal. |