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.
3401 - 3500 of 12382 results
|
Krueger v. Krueger (Cross-reference w/20070196)
2013 ND 245 Highlight: A party seeking a contempt sanction must clearly and satisfactorily prove the alleged contempt was committed. An inability to comply with an order is a defense to contempt proceedings, but the alleged contemnor has the burden to prove the defense. |
|
Stensland v. Disciplinary Board
2013 ND 244
Highlight: A suspended lawyer has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence the requisite honesty and integrity to be reinstated to the practice of law. |
|
Rath v. Rath (cross reference w/20130327 & 20130025)
2013 ND 243
Highlight: Technical violations of a court order do not necessarily require a finding of contempt. |
|
State, et al. v. B.B., et al. (confidential)
2013 ND 242
Highlight: A paternity and support claim can be bifurcated from a related custody action. |
|
Dahm v. Stark County Board of County Commissioners
2013 ND 241
Highlight: The decision of a board of county commissioners on whether to approve an application for a zoning change and plat approval will be affirmed unless the board acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, or if there is not substantial evidence supporting the decision. |
|
Bahtiraj v. State
2013 ND 240 Highlight: Without more, the second Strickland prong is not satisfied by a self-serving statement that the petitioner would have insisted on going to trial. Factors to consider when determining the rationality of rejecting a guilty plea and insisting on going to trial include immigration consequences, strength of the case against the petitioner, and rational defenses to the charged crime. |
|
State v. Otto
2013 ND 239 Highlight: The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to a readily mobile camper that is not in a place regularly used for residential purposes. |
|
Kinsella v. State
2013 ND 238 Highlight: Failure to move pretrial to suppress evidence, by itself, does not equate to ineffective assistance of counsel. Where evidence allegedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but where counsel has no reason to question the search and seizure, failure to file a motion to suppress does not render the representation ineffective. |
|
Morton County Social Service Board, et al. v. Houim
2013 ND 237
Highlight: When a party moves to modify primary residential responsibility of a child, the district court must consider only the party's motion on briefs, affidavits, and other supporting documents to determine whether the moving party established a prima facie case and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. |
|
State v. Canfield
2013 ND 236 Highlight: An inadequate record may make appellate review of the district court's denial of a suppression motion impossible, thus requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings. |
|
Parsons v. WSI
2013 ND 235
Highlight: A claimant for workers' compensation benefits must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical condition for which benefits are sought is causally related to a work injury. |
|
State v. One 2002 Dodge Intrepid Automobile
2013 ND 234
Highlight: Due process requires that a notice of forfeiture hearing be served on any interested party. |
|
Matter of Muscha
2013 ND 233 Highlight: Order civilly committing appellant as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
State v. Fee (consol. 20130177)
2013 ND 232 Highlight: A district court judgment forfeiting property connected to criminal activity is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Ruddell
2013 ND 231 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered for abandonment or nonsupport of a child is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. Kippen (consolidated w/20130263)
2013 ND 230 Highlight: Convictions of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a suspended license are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. Kaka
2013 ND 229 Highlight: Conviction for burglary and theft of property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Johnson v. State
2013 ND 228 Highlight: Order dismissing application for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Reciprocal Discipline of Murrin
2013 ND 227 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
|
Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. WSI, et al.
2013 ND 226 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's order, which affirmed WSI's order awarding benefits to a claimant, is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6, East Central Judicial District
2013 ND 225 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo. |
|
State v. Rau
2013 ND 224 Highlight: A conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. Kling
2013 ND 223 Highlight: A criminal judgment for disorderly conduct is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Craft
2013 ND 222 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Wolff (Consol. w/ 20130268-20130273)
2013 ND 221 Highlight: Lawyer disbarment ordered. |
|
Reciprocal Discipline of Kalk
2013 ND 220 Highlight: Lawyer reprimanded. |
|
Wagner v. Crossland Construction Company, Inc., et al.
2013 ND 219
Highlight: Use of the words "subject to" in a warranty deed connotes a limitation on the grantor's warranty and not a reservation of rights. |
|
Van Sickle, et al. v. Hallmark & Assoc., Inc., et al. (cross-reference 20070154
2013 ND 218
Highlight: In a proceeding under N.D.C.C. 47-16-39.1 to recover unpaid oil and gas royalties, a "prevailing party" is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. |
|
Oakland v. Bowman, et al.
2013 ND 217
Highlight: North Dakota has not adopted equitable tolling as an exception to a statute of limitations. |
|
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Halvorson
2013 ND 216 Highlight: A party may renew a judgment by either complying with the affidavit procedure under N.D.C.C. 28-20-21 or commencing a separate action on the judgment. |
|
Estates of Shubert
2013 ND 215
Highlight: An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists because subsequent events have made it impossible for the court to provide effective relief. |
|
Moore v. State
2013 ND 214
Highlight: On appeal of a summary dismissal of an application for postconviction relief, a reviewing court must determine whether or not the information available to the district court, when viewed in a light most favorable to the opposing party, precludes the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitles the moving party to summary dismissal as a matter of law. |
|
State v. Blagen
2013 ND 213 Highlight: Criminal judgment for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Wald v. Holmes
2013 ND 212
Highlight: The doctrine of res judicata should not be strictly applied to preclude the trial court from hearing for the first time relevant primary residential responsibility-related evidence bearing on considerations of what is in a child's best interests. |
|
Adoption of I.R.R. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2013 ND 211 Highlight: A parent's parental rights may be terminated by a court order in connection with an adoption action if the parent abandoned the child. |
|
Pesanti v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2013 ND 210 Highlight: Continuous and gradual weaving significantly more pronounced than "slight" weaving, engine revving, and the time of day an incident occurred may all contribute to the totality of the circumstances providing an officer with a reasonable and articulable suspicion for a traffic stop. |
|
Sateren v. Sateren (cross-referenced w/20120192)
2013 ND 209 Highlight: District court order explaining and reaffirming an earlier order denying reallocation of marital property and debt in a divorce case is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
State v. Klamm
2013 ND 208 Highlight: Criminal judgment after a defendant conditionally pled guilty to driving under the influence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Interest of T.D., a Child (CONFIDENTIAL)
2013 ND 207 Highlight: Juvenile court judgment terminating father's parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of H.D. (Confidential)
2013 ND 206 Highlight: Continuing treatment order and involuntary treatment with medication order summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of C.N. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2013 ND 205
Highlight: As part of a deprived child analysis, a parent must demonstrate present capability, or capability within the near future, to be an adequate parent. |
|
State, et al. v. Eli
2013 ND 204 Highlight: Default judgment imputing minimum wage as basis for child support calculation for unemployed incarcerated obligor summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Newman v. State
2013 ND 203 Highlight: District court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
|
State v. Klamm
2013 ND 202 Highlight: A district court judgment entered after a conditional guilty plea to driving under suspension is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (3), and (7). |
|
Davis v. State
2013 ND 201 Highlight: A district court judgment summarily dismissing an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
|
City of Fargo v. White
2013 ND 200 Highlight: A district court's summary affirmance of a municipal court judgment under N.D.R.Crim.P. 37(l) may not occur at proceedings which occur before the trial anew. |
|
State v. Lattergrass
2013 ND 199 Highlight: A criminal judgment for simple assault on a peace officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Peterson v. Pierce, et al.
2013 ND 198 Highlight: In a dispute over a lost rental payment, the judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Lang
2013 ND 197 Highlight: Conviction for theft of property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Danuser v. IDA Marketing Corp., et al.
2013 ND 196
Highlight: A director in a closely-held corporation may be liable to a single shareholder for actions that unfairly prejudice the shareholder. |
|
State v. Evans
2013 ND 195
Highlight: Lay witness testimony, in the form of an opinion, must be rationally based on the perception of the witness and also helpful to the jury's determination of a fact in question. |
|
State v. Mossey
2013 ND 194 Highlight: Conviction for class B felony luring a minor by computer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
|
Hillerson, et al. v. Bismarck Public Schools, et al.
2013 ND 193
Highlight: When reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the terms of a release of liability provision in a contract, the release of liability provision is ambiguous, and summary judgment is not appropriate. |
|
Kukla v. Kukla
2013 ND 192
Highlight: A party moving for relief from a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) has the burden to establish sufficient grounds for disturbing the finality of the decree, and relief should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. |
|
Matter of Hehn (consolidated w/ 20130143)
2013 ND 191 Highlight: A person civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual is entitled as a matter of right to only one discharge hearing within a twelve-month period. |
|
Matter of Rubey (cross-reference 20100292 & 20110322)
2013 ND 190
Highlight: A proponent of excluded evidence must make an offer of proof to the trial court and show prejudice from the restriction to show an abuse of discretion. |
|
State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber
2013 ND 189
Highlight: A district court does not abuse its discretion when a finding of willful contempt is supported by the evidence and inferences from the evidence. |
|
State v. Samshal
2013 ND 188
Highlight: In criminal cases, a defendant's testimony about statements made by the victim of the alleged offense, offered to establish the defendant's state of mind, are not hearsay because they are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. |
|
Empower the Taxpayer, et al. v. Fong, et al.(cross-ref w/20120191, 197, 444
2013 ND 187
Highlight: A reviewing court cannot perform its appellate function unless it is able to understand the basis for the trial court's decision, and therefore the trial court must provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision. |
|
Kershaw v. WSI
2013 ND 186
Highlight: Separation of powers prevents the Supreme Court from making independent findings of fact or substituting its judgment for that of the agency fact finder. |
|
Rustad v. Rustad
2013 ND 185
Highlight: In determining primary residential responsibility, the district court is required to consider all of the best interest factors and make findings with sufficient specificity to enable the reviewing court to understand the factual basis for the court's decision. |
|
State v. Howard
2013 ND 184
Highlight: Issues not raised at the trial court level, even constitutional issues, generally will not be addressed for the first time on appeal. |
|
State v. Whitman
2013 ND 183
Highlight: Plain error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) may be noticed by the Court on its own motion. |
|
State v. Arot
2013 ND 182
Highlight: For the district court to have jurisdiction, the State must prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant is not a minor. |
|
State v. Johnson
2013 ND 181 Highlight: Criminal judgment for gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Beauclair v. Vanderveer
2013 ND 180 Highlight: Divorce judgment distributing the parties' property under the terms of a premarital agreement is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Sweeney v. Kirby (cross-reference w/20120339)
2013 ND 179 Highlight: Denial of a motion to modify primary residential responsibility is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Clements
2013 ND 178 Highlight: A crimnal judgment for disorderly conduct is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
|
State v. Goulet
2013 ND 177 Highlight: A criminal judgment for aggravated assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Walstad v. Walstad (cross-reference 20120059)
2013 ND 176
Highlight: An independent action in equity is available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. |
|
Rolla v. Tank, et al.
2013 ND 175
Highlight: A caption on a deed is of no effect when the conveyance is clear. |
|
Holte v. Holte
2013 ND 174
Highlight: When a substantial marital debt has been excluded from the marital estate, it is not possible to determine whether the district court would have reached the same result in allocating the assets and debts had it included the debt. |
|
Seibold v. Leverington (cross-reference w/ 20110152)
2013 ND 173
Highlight: Although a separate finding is not required for each statutory best interest factor, the court's findings must contain sufficient specificity to show the factual basis for the residential responsibility decision. |
|
Baatz v. State
2013 ND 172 Highlight: Questions raised and decided on a former appeal in the same action are not open for consideration on a subsequent appeal, because the decision on the first appeal, whether right or wrong, is the law of the case. |
|
Interest of Graham
2013 ND 171 Highlight: Res judicata does not apply to the second element of the sexually dangerous individual analysis, determining whether a committed individual has a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder, personality disorder or other mental disorder or dysfunction, when evaluating a committed sexually dangerous individual's petition for discharge. |
|
Stark County v. A motor vehicle, et al.
2013 ND 170 Highlight: Movement of a vehicle for weighing at the direction of a police officer is not movement for purposes of a weight-restriction violation. |
|
McColl Farms v. Pflaum
2013 ND 169
Highlight: A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it is disclosed with certainty the impossibility of proving a claim upon which relief can be granted. |
|
Hallin, et al. v. Lyngstad, et al.
2013 ND 168
Highlight: The language of the deed, if clear and explicit, governs its interpretation, and the parties' mutual intentions must be ascertained from the four corners of the deed, if possible. |
|
Anderson v. Jenkins
2013 ND 167
Highlight: A district court may conclude the moving party failed to establish a prima facie case for change of primary residential responsibility only if: (1) the opposing party's counter-affidavits conclusively establish that the moving party's allegations have no credibility; or (2) the moving party's allegations are insufficient on their face, even if uncontradicted, to justify modification. |
|
State v. Zander
2013 ND 166 Highlight: Possession of a controlled substance conviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3). |
|
State v. Moran
2013 ND 165 Highlight: Criminal judgment for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Rebel v. Rebel (consolidated with 20130033)
2013 ND 164
Highlight: The district court may grant a disorderly conduct restraining order if the petitioner complies with the statutory procedural requirements and if, after a hearing, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the respondent has engaged in disorderly conduct. |
|
State v. Nefzger
2013 ND 163 Highlight: Criminal judgment after a defendant conditionally pled guilty to drug-related charges is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Ratteray
2013 ND 162 Highlight: Criminal judgment for gross sexual imposition and creation of sexually expressive images is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
|
Interest of C.R.
2013 ND 161 Highlight: A juvenile court judgment terminating a father's parental rights is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Thimjon Farms Partnership, et al. v. First International Bank & Trust
2013 ND 160
Highlight: Interference with an existing contract is justified if done for legitimate business reasons and without malice. |
|
Four Seasons Healthcare Center, Inc. v. Linderkamp, et al. (cons. w/20120433)
2013 ND 159
Highlight: Parol evidence may be used to establish the consideration for the conveyance of land. |
|
North Central Electric Coop., Inc. v. Public Service Commission, et al.
2013 ND 158 Highlight: A state may not assert regulatory authority over non-Indians on Indian-owned land within a reservation if the state's action infringes on tribal self-government. |
|
Daniels v. Ziegler
2013 ND 157
Highlight: A person appealing to the district court from an administrative decision to suspend driving privileges must file specifications of error that identify what matters are truly at issue with sufficient specificity to fairly apprise the agency, other parties, and the court of the particular errors claimed. |
|
Brash v. Gulleson
2013 ND 156
Highlight: Failure of consideration is an affirmative defense that arises when a valid contract has been formed, but the performance bargained for has not been rendered. |
|
State v. Nickel (consolidated w/20120418)
2013 ND 155
Highlight: The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only government action. |
|
Bloomquist v. The Goose River Bank, et al.
2013 ND 154
Highlight: An oral agreement to loan money providing for repayment extending for a period longer than one year, and which does not include express terms governing prepayment, is barred by the statute of frauds. |
|
Pifer v. McDermott (cross-reference 20110287)
2013 ND 153
Highlight: A person may gift an option to purchase real property. |
|
Solid Comfort, Inc. v. Hatchett Hospitality, Inc., et al.
2013 ND 152
Highlight: If personal jurisdiction us challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. The plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. If the court relies only on pleadings and affidavits, the court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Lee
2013 ND 151 Highlight: The purpose of the prohibition against a lawyer charging an unreasonable fee is to protect clients and the public from excessive fees which exceed the bounds of reasonableness in light of the amount and quality of the work performed, the results obtained, and the fees customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services. |
|
Estate of Cashmore (cross reference with 20090315)
2013 ND 150
Highlight: A remedial sanction for contempt, requires the alleged contemnor receive notice and a hearing. |
|
Johnson, et al. v. Finkle, et al.
2013 ND 149
Highlight: Under the Duhig rationale, a grantor cannot grant and reserve the same mineral interest, and if a grantor does not own a large enough mineral interest to satisfy both the grant and the reservation, the grant must be satisfied first. |
|
Datz v. Dosch (cross-reference w/ 20120167)
2013 ND 148
Highlight: The district court's findings under the statutory best interest of the child factors must contain sufficient specificity to show the factual basis for the court's decision. |
|
Bell, et al. v. Pro Tune Plus, et al.
2013 ND 147
Highlight: A district court does not have the authority to remand an action properly removed from the small claims court. |
|
Interest of Johnson
2013 ND 146
Highlight: The district court is the best credibility evaluator in cases of conflicting testimony. |