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.
1651 - 1700 of 12389 results
|
Gerving v. Gerving, et al.
2020 ND 116 Highlight: In divorce cases, the district court must make an equitable property distribution. |
|
Kling v. NDDOT
2020 ND 115 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative suspension of driving privileges for a period of 91 days is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Axtman v. Axtman
2020 ND 114
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), a district court may amend a judgment to correct a mistake resulting from an oversight or omission that causes the judgment to fail to reflect the court’s intent. |
|
Voigt v. Nelson
2020 ND 113
Highlight: Section 8.6, N.D.R.Ct., governs parenting investigators and incorporates the code of conduct. The code of conduct provides a parenting investigator should aggressively strive to achieve professional independence and objectivity. |
|
Dellinger v. Wolf, et al.
2020 ND 112 Highlight: The Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide statutory authorization for immediate appeals of decisions concerning insurers’ duty to defend. |
|
Thiel v. Thiel
2020 ND 111 Highlight: District court orders denying motions for continuance and for appointment of a parenting investigator and a divorce judgment are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Sims v. Sims, et al.
2020 ND 110
Highlight: Extended parenting time with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely awarded if the child is old enough, absent a reason for denying it. |
|
Horvath v. State
2020 ND 109 Highlight: A district court’s order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Traynor Law Firm v. State, et al.
2020 ND 108 Highlight: A district court judgment determining the State is responsible to pay attorney’s fees for removal of a county officer is affirmed and awarding interest at 6% per year is reversed. |
|
Jacobs-Raak v. Raak, et al.
2020 ND 107
Highlight: Only judgments and decrees constituting a final judgment and specific orders enumerated by statute are appealable. |
|
State v. Wayland
2020 ND 106 Highlight: Although the reason for the continuance is absent from the record, under de novo review a district court did not violate the Appellant’s right to a speedy trial by continuing the trial to a later date. |
|
Albrecht v. Albrecht, et al.
2020 ND 105
Highlight: A motion to dismiss a complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the statement of the claim presented in the complaint. |
|
Arnold, et al. v. Trident Resources, et al.
2020 ND 104 Highlight: A district court’s order imposing sanctions for contempt did not provide a sufficient record to review the appropriateness of the sanction. |
|
Decker v. WSI, et al.
2020 ND 103 Highlight: District court judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s decision denying further workers’ compensation benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). |
|
Hewitt v. NDDOT
2020 ND 102
Highlight: Copies of official Department of Transportation records may be certified as correct by Department employees who are not acting in a director capacity. |
|
State v. Michel
2020 ND 101
Highlight: A district court’s response to a jury request for supplemental instructions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. |
|
Dodge v. State
2020 ND 100
Highlight: Whether a defendant is competent to plead guilty is a finding of fact. |
|
New Freedom Center v. Job Service, et al.
2020 ND 99 Highlight: Judgment affirming Job Service North Dakota's allowance of unemployment benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) and (7). |
|
Brossart, et al. v. Janke, et al.
2020 ND 98
Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 28-20.1-03(2), the clerk of district court is required to mail notice of the filing of a foreign judgment to the judgment debtor. |
|
State v. Kolstad
2020 ND 97
Highlight: The State may appeal from an order quashing an information or indictment. |
|
Rath v. Rath
2020 ND 96 Highlight: District court orders denying a motion for contempt and a request to reconsider are affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1 (a)(1) and (4). |
|
State v. Helmenstein
2020 ND 95
Highlight: Amended criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Darji
2020 ND 94 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
C & K Consulting v. Ward County Board of Commissioners (consol w/ 20190313-
2020 ND 93 Highlight: The district court abused its discretion when it denied granting relief from a judgment dismissing a case as a sanction when the dismissal was based on a misapplication of the law. |
|
Schwindt v. Sorel
2020 ND 92
Highlight: Other factors may cause a horizontal gaze nystagmus test to be unreliable, including physiological causes for nystagmus, but those factors go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. |
|
Kastet v. NDDOT
2020 ND 91 Highlight: A district court judgment reversing an administrative law judge’s order suspending driving privileges is reversed and remanded. |
|
WSI v. Avila, et al.
2020 ND 90 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's order, which determined an individual is entitled to both the scheduled and whole body impairment award, is reversed and remanded under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46, because it is not in accordance with the law. |
|
Feltman, et al. v. Gaustad, et al.
2020 ND 89
Highlight: Elements of a legal malpractice claim are: 1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship, 2) a duty by the attorney to the client, 3) a breach of that duty by the attorney, and 4) damages to the client proximately caused by the breach of duty. |
|
State v. Burow
2020 ND 88 Highlight: Conviction of class C felony simple assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. Dahl
2020 ND 87 Highlight: The State’s motion to terminate a pretrial diversion agreement and resume prosecution must be made within one month after expiration of the period of suspension specified in the agreement. |
|
Interest of A.T. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 86 Highlight: An order terminating father’s parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Foster
2020 ND 85
Highlight: Questions requiring the defendant to give his opinion regarding the veracity and credibility of earlier witnesses is improper. |
|
Interest of F.M.G. (Confidential)
2020 ND 84 Highlight: A district court’s continuing treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Shadow Industries, LLP v. Hoffman, et al.
2020 ND 83 Highlight: A district court erred in determining a lease was ambiguous with regard to when the term ended. A term in a lease is not ambiguous simply because it requires a future event or contingency. |
|
Interest of M.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 82 Highlight: Judgment terminating father’s parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Johnson v. City of Burlington
2020 ND 81 Highlight: This Court’s review of the appeal from the decision of a local governing body is very limited. A city’s denial of a variance application is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable when the ordinances do not provide for a variance based on the evidence presented. |
|
State v. Craig
2020 ND 80 Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. |
|
Schweitzer v. Miller
2020 ND 79
Highlight: A party may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during a proceeding. |
|
State v. Krogstad
2020 ND 78 Highlight: If a defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial, the admission of testimonial statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. |
|
Willprecht v. Willprecht
2020 ND 77
Highlight: In divorce proceedings, if the parties do not agree on a valuation date for marital property, the valuation date is the date the parties separated or the date of the service of the summons in the action, whichever occurred first. |
|
Christianson v. NDDOT
2020 ND 76 Highlight: The Department of Transportation’s decision to suspend an individual’s driving privileges was not in accordance with the law when it was based on evidence that was inadmissible at the adjudication hearing. |
|
Joyce v. Joyce
2020 ND 75
Highlight: A district court may require a hearing even when no party requests a hearing. |
|
State v. West
2020 ND 74
Highlight: Probationers consent to reasonable warrantless searches when they submit to a search condition as part of the terms of their probation. |
|
North Star Mutual Insurance v. Ackerman, et al.
2020 ND 73 Highlight: Under the concurrent cause doctrine, an insurance policy provides coverage for liability when both a covered risk and an excluded risk contribute to the accident. |
|
Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 72 Highlight: A juvenile court does not have an obligation to ensure a party’s presence. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10(a)(3), a parent of a child must be present unless excused by the court. |
|
Matter of Hogen Trust B
2020 ND 71 Highlight: A district court may clarify its own previous order. Due process is an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and meaningful manner and is complied with if the party has an opportunity, but argues other issues. A party that does not raise an issue in the district court cannot argue the issue for the first time on appeal. |
|
Martodam v. Martodam
2020 ND 70
Highlight: Interlocutory orders in an action are merged into the final judgment and may be reviewed on appeal of that judgment. A final judgment supersedes an interim order’s parenting provisions, which are by nature temporary. |
|
State v. Cook
2020 ND 69
Highlight: In determining whether the moving party has established a prima facie case of an illegal seizure, a district court may consider evidence already in the record. |
|
State v. Eggleston
2020 ND 68
Highlight: The district court did not err in dismissing the defendant’s motion for an acquittal because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict defendant and for the jury to conclude he was not acting in self-defense. |
|
Lakeview Excavating, Inc. v. Dickey County, et al.
2020 ND 67
Highlight: Determining when a cause of action accrues is usually a question of fact, but it becomes a question of law when the material facts are undisputed. Under the discovery rule the accrual of a claim is postponed until the plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the wrongful act and its resulting injury. |