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.
101 - 150 of 12280 results
|
State v. Hoff
2025 ND 215
Highlight: A defendant can waive his right to counsel either expressly, or through his conduct. |
|
Interest of G.S.
2025 ND 214 Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of A.S.
2025 ND 214 Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Kolstad v. Claussen
2025 ND 213
Highlight: The district court must state its findings of fact with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions. A court's findings of fact are sufficient if they afford a clear understanding of the court's decision and assist the appellate court in conducting its review. |
|
Wright, et al. v. Holmes
2025 ND 212 Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
State v. Ahmed
2025 ND 211
Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-01-01(3), a firearm means any weapon that will expel, or is readily capable of expelling, a projectile by the action of an explosive. |
|
State v. Running Bear
2025 ND 210 Highlight: A jury verdict's criminal conviction for child abuse of a victim under six years of age is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Fairville Township v. Wells Cty. Water Resource District
2025 ND 209 Highlight: Section 61-16.1-51, N.D.C.C., does not authorize water resource boards to assess their costs against governing bodies not acting as a landowner. |
|
Adoption of G.M.H.
2025 ND 208
Highlight: District courts have discretion to terminate parental rights based on abandonment by evaluating whether a noncustodial parent failed to communicate with or support their child without justifiable cause. Courts must assess the specific facts of each case to determine if the parent's lack of contact and care was justified by the circumstances or represented an unjustified failure to maintain the parent-child relationship. |
|
Interest of B.L.H.
2025 ND 207 Highlight: An order granting involuntary treatment with prescribed medication is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
MidFirst Bank v. Young, et al.
2025 ND 206
Highlight: A mortgagor lacks standing to challenge a mortgage assignment between the assignor and assignee as a non-party to that transaction. |
|
Harris v. State
2025 ND 205
Highlight: A plaintiff seeking postconviction relief is required to show but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability the result at trial would have been different. |
|
State v. Martinez
2025 ND 204
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 24, a jury is not empaneled until all jurors, including any alternates, have been qualified, accepted, and sworn. |
|
State v. Martinez
2025 ND 204
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 24, a jury is not empaneled until all jurors, including any alternates, have been qualified, accepted, and sworn. |
|
Interest of A.D.-B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of M.D.-B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of C.B.
2025 ND 203 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Kalmio v. State
2025 ND 202 Highlight: An order denying relief in a postconviction proceeding is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
State v. Bell
2025 ND 201
Highlight: When interpreting a statute, the primary goal is to determine the legislature's intent by looking to the statute's plain language and attempting to give each word, phrase, and sentence its ordinary meaning. |
|
State v. Lizotte
2025 ND 200 Highlight: A district court order revoking probation and resentencing the defendant is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic. et al. v. Wrigley, et al.
2025 ND 199 Highlight: A sufficient majority was not reached to declare unconstitutional N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1, which criminalizes abortion with exceptions. The effect of the separate opinions is that a district court judgment declaring N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 unconstitutional and void is reversed. |
|
Johnson v. Staiger
2025 ND 198
Highlight: District courts may properly consider a parent's alcohol abuse and act of driving under the influence when determining whether a material change of circumstances exists. However, our cases do not show an isolated incident of a parent driving under the influence automatically mandates a finding of a material change of circumstances. |
|
State v. Vetter
2025 ND 197
Highlight: Issues not raised or considered in the district court, including claims of constitutionally protected activity, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, unless the issue rises to the level of obvious error. It is the defendant's burden to show an obvious error that affects a substantial right, and the discretion to notice obvious error need not be exercised when obvious error is not raised on appeal. |
|
Diop v. Altepeter, et al.
2025 ND 196 Highlight: An order denying Altepeter's motion to amend parenting time provisions in a divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) and (8). |
|
Clemenson v. Clemenson, et al.
2025 ND 195
Highlight: The domestic violence factor in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) requires the district court find credible evidence that domestic violence occurred. The court next must find an instance of (1) serious bodily injury, or (2) use of a dangerous weapon, or (3) a pattern of domestic violence within a reasonable time proximate to the proceeding. |
|
State v. Gores
2025 ND 194
Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a bench trial is affirmed because sufficient evidence supports the convictions. |
|
Boyda v. Boyda, et al.
2025 ND 193
Highlight: An existing parenting plan that creates conflict between a parent and the children can be a material change of circumstances for modification of the plan. |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6, ECJD
2025 ND 192 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Cotton
2025 ND 191 Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means. |
|
State v. Wallette
2025 ND 190
Highlight: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the North Dakota Constitution respectively prohibit infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" and "cruel or unusual punishments." A punishment in a non-capital case that is grossly disproportionate to the offense is cruel and unusual. The disproportionality principle is narrow. It forbids only extreme sentences. |
|
Smith v. State
2025 ND 189
Highlight: An attorney's representation of a criminal defendant fell below an objective |
|
State v. Miller
2025 ND 188
Highlight: Orders revoking probation and resentencing defendant for aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
|
State v. Miller
2025 ND 188
Highlight: Orders revoking probation and resentencing defendant for aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
|
Overton v. Overton
2025 ND 187
Highlight: Procedural due process does not require the district court to ensure incarcerated parties to civil litigation are present at hearings. |
|
State v. Barrett
2025 ND 186
Highlight: A jury's question or request to view evidence during deliberations shall take place in open court, unless the defendant agrees otherwise. |
|
State v. Watterud
2025 ND 185
Highlight: A victim's testimony about misconduct occurring over several years can be sufficient to support a conviction. |
|
McMahon v. Sanford, et al.
2025 ND 184
Highlight: A professional negligence action against a physician, nurse, or hospital generally requires an expert affidavit. Generally, decisions to provide medication, refuse to provide medication, or discharge a patient are medical decisions requiring the expertise of medical professionals. |
|
State v. Weber
2025 ND 183
Highlight: A party bears the burden to correctly label its motion as to inform the court of the relief sought. The district court did not err when it treated appellant's motion as a request for relief under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) based on its label. |
|
State v. Wilson
2025 ND 182
Highlight: A probationer's right to counsel does not arise from the Sixth Amendment but rather from North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f)(3)(A)(iii). Because of the statutory origin of a probationer's right to counsel at a revocation hearing, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding does not apply. |
|
Interest of M.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of A.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of C.P.
2025 ND 181 Highlight: The juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Heisler v. Reiger, et al.
2025 ND 180
Highlight: A post-trial motion invoking both N.D.R.Civ.P. 59 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) extends the time to file an appeal until notice of entry of the order disposing of the motion when the motion is brought within the time limits set forth in N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(c)(2) and N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3). |
|
Eggl v. State
2025 ND 179 Highlight: Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when his client chose to enter an open plea rather than accept the State's plea offer where counsel provided his client the options on how to proceed, explained the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and left the final decision on how to proceed to his client. |
|
State v. Chambers
2025 ND 178 Highlight: A criminal defendant failed to show his substantial rights were prejudiced by the potential ambiguity of pleading guilty to both a cognizable offense and a non-cognizable offense where there was a sufficient factual basis to support the guilty plea to the cognizable offense. The requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(B) did not apply where the criminal defendant entered an open plea rather than pleading guilty under a plea agreement in which the parties presented a joint recommendation on a proposed sentence. |
|
Schultz v. Schultz
2025 ND 177 Highlight: A district court divorce judgment awarding equal residential responsibility and distributing the marital estate is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Hernandez v. State
2025 ND 176 Highlight: A district court order dismissing an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |