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.
1451 - 1500 of 12382 results
|
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. |
|
State v. Watson
2021 ND 18 Highlight: A defendant may not withdraw a guilty plea after the court has imposed a sentence unless the defendant proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. |
|
Willprecht v. Willprecht
2021 ND 17
Highlight: A district court’s use, on remand, of its previous Ruff-Fischer guidelines analysis is not by itself clearly erroneous. |
|
State v. Bear King
2021 ND 16 Highlight: The criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
|
Interest of A.R.S. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/ 20200200)
2021 ND 15 Highlight: District court judgment finding children are deprived is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Munzal v. State
2021 ND 14 Highlight: An order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Matter of Didier
2021 ND 13 Highlight: A district court order denying request for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
R & F Financial Services v. North American Building Solutions, et al.
2021 ND 12
Highlight: All contracts entered into by the parties must be construed together, and only the provisions in the latter contracts which are inconsistent with the prior contracts will supersede. |
|
State v. Casatelli
2021 ND 11
Highlight: A district court’s decision on a motion to suppress will be affirmed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court’s findings and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. |
|
Interest of M.M. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated w/20200336 - 20200339)
2021 ND 10 Highlight: An order terminating mother’s parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Rivera-Rieffel
2021 ND 9 Highlight: Criminal conviction for murder and child abuse is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Young v. Burleigh Morton Detention Center, et al.
2021 ND 8
Highlight: A violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not occur unless the government knowingly intrudes into the attorney-client relationship and the intrusion prejudices the defendant or creates a substantial threat of prejudice. |
|
State v. Aune
2021 ND 7 Highlight: A defendant may not challenge a jury verdict as inconsistent based upon an alleged error he invited by requesting an instruction on a lesser included offense. If a defendant does not object to the introduction of prior convictions at sentencing, and the prior convictions were not relied upon to enhance the term of incarceration, the appropriate standard of review is obvious error. It is not error to consider a defendant’s prior convictions as a part of their criminal history under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04 if there has been no showing that the prior convictions were uncounseled and without proper waiver. |
|
Estate of Seidel v. Seidel, et al.
2021 ND 6
Highlight: The primary purpose in interpreting a deed is to ascertain and effectuate the grantor’s intent at the time of the conveyance. The intent must be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible. |
|
Neppel, et al. v. Development Homes, et al.
2021 ND 5
Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied an untimely motion to amend the complaint. |
|
State v. Evanson (consolidated w/20200057)
2021 ND 4 Highlight: When a defendant fails to object to the introduction of prior convictions at sentencing, and the court did not substantially rely on the convictions as the basis for enhancing a defendant’s sentence or increasing their offense level, obvious error is the appropriate standard of review. A defendant cannot establish obvious error if they cannot first establish that an error has occurred. |
|
Brendel Construction v. WSI
2021 ND 3
Highlight: On review of an administrative law judge’s findings of fact, this Court determines only whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the findings were proven by the weight of the evidence from the entire record. |
|
Potts v. City of Devils Lake, et al.
2021 ND 2 Highlight: Under North Dakota law no public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine exists for law enforcement officers who act in self-defense. |
|
Melaas v. Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development
2021 ND 1
Highlight: An order compelling arbitration and dismissing the action is appealable. |
|
Interest of Buller
2020 ND 270
Highlight: The State’s second petition seeking civil commitment of a sexually dangerous individual was not barred by res judicata. |
|
Atkins v. State
2020 ND 269 Highlight: Court-appointed appellate counsel is not permitted to file an Anders brief in post-conviction relief proceedings. |
|
State v. Hirschkorn
2020 ND 268
Highlight: A district court’s decision to exclude evidence on the basis it lacks adequate foundation lies within its sound discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion that affected substantial rights. |
|
McCarvel, et al. v. Perhus, et al.
2020 ND 267
Highlight: A district court’s finding that plaintiffs obtained property through boundary by acquiescence is affirmed. |
|
State v. Foote
2020 ND 266
Highlight: This Court, in its review, will not weigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. We will affirm a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. |
|
State v. Sackenreuter
2020 ND 265
Highlight: N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) is clear and unambiguous. |
|
Twete v. Mullin, et al.
2020 ND 264 Highlight: As adopted in North Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code (U.T.C.) does not provide for a statutory award of attorney’s fees in cases of breach of trust. The adoption of the U.T.C. without Section 1006 did not displace the limited authority to award attorney’s fees under the common law in cases of breach of trust. The common fund exception does not apply to cases of breach of trust in which the action was brought by the sole beneficiary of the trust. |
|
NBS Consulting v. Harris, et al.
2020 ND 263 Highlight: An eviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Lindstaedt v. George
2020 ND 262
Highlight: A district court’s finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. |