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.
1701 - 1750 of 12382 results
|
Wasley v. WSI, et al.
2020 ND 59 |
|
Sapa, et al. v. Lofthus
2020 ND 58 Highlight: A district court judgment relating to the cancellation of a contract for deed is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Interest of D.M.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 55 Highlight: Juvenile court orders finding and affirming aggravating circumstances and ending services are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2),(7). |
|
Northern States Power v. Mikkelson, et al.
2020 ND 54 Highlight: The amount of damages caused by an eminent domain taking is an issue of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. |
|
Schulke v. NDDOT
2020 ND 53 Highlight: Section 39-20-14(1), N.D.C.C., establishes that drivers are deemed to have provided consent to submit to a screening test when the driver commits a traffic offense or is involved in an accident and, in conjunction with the traffic violation or accident, law enforcement formulates an opinion the driver’s body contains alcohol; It does not require the screening test to be conducted at the location of the stop. |
|
State v. Mohammed
2020 ND 52 Highlight: Sufficient evidence supports the criminal judgment finding the defendant guilty of gross sexual imposition. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion for acquittal. |
|
State v. Ovind
2020 ND 51
Highlight: Defendants have the right to court-appointed counsel at public expense in all felony cases and in all non-felony cases, unless the sentence upon conviction will not include imprisonment, only if they are eligible under the guidelines governing indigency. |
|
State v. Marcum
2020 ND 50
Highlight: Exclusion of evidence is not the proper remedy when law enforcement acts in good faith upon objectively reasonable reliance that a warrant was properly issued. |
|
Rieger v. Ackerman, et al.
2020 ND 49
Highlight: District courts have broad discretion in partition actions to do equity and make a fair division of the property or proceeds between the parties and have wide flexibility in ordering proper relief for the parties. |
|
State v. McAllister
2020 ND 48
Highlight: The district court did not err when it limited cross-examination of a victim regarding the victim’s interest in obtaining restitution. |
|
Northwest Grading, Inc. v. North Star Water, LLC, et al.
2020 ND 47
Highlight: Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), N.D.R.Civ.P., permits a district court to sanction a party in violation of a discovery order by prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing a claim or defense with evidence not disclosed under the discovery order. |
|
Smithberg v. Jacobson, et al.
2020 ND 46 Highlight: When an appellate court remands a case for a trial without limitation, a party who previously stipulated to waive the right to a jury trial may demand a jury trial, unless the parties intended the stipulation to apply to any future trials or the right is otherwise limited by law. |
|
Interest of E.K. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2020 ND 44 Highlight: A district court treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Benson
2020 ND 43 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Stevenson v. Biffert
2020 ND 42
Highlight: This Court does not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses in a primary residential responsibility case. |
|
State v. Gratton
2020 ND 41 Highlight: Having a marital property interest in a vehicle does not prevent an individual from being prosecuted for theft of the vehicle. A district court’s authority to weigh evidence and assess credibility of witnesses at a preliminary hearing is limited. |
|
Vetter v. Vetter
2020 ND 40 |
|
Ouradnik v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2020 ND 39
Highlight: The district court erred by reversing the administrative hearing officer’s decision based on an issue that was not preserved for review. |
|
State v. Sah
2020 ND 38 Highlight: If a defendant moves for a new trial, the defendant is limited on appeal to the grounds presented to the district court in the motion. If the defendant does not preserve an issue for appeal, and does not argue obvious error this Court may decline to review the issue for obvious error. |
|
City of West Fargo v. Ekstrom
2020 ND 37
Highlight: A mistrial that is declared with the defendant’s consent, such as when the defendant moves for a mistrial without having been goaded into doing so by misconduct attributable to the prosecutor, generally does not bar a later prosecution. |
|
Carlson v. Carlson
2020 ND 36
Highlight: Section 14-09-06.2(1)(j), N.D.C.C., creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence if certain criteria is met. |
|
Reese v. Reese-Young
2020 ND 35
Highlight: The law in North Dakota is expressed by various sources, including statutes and common law, and the common law applies when it does not conflict with statutory law. |
|
State v. Lyon
2020 ND 34
Highlight: Issues which are beyond the scope of a remand in a prior appeal will not be addressed in a subsequent appeal after remand. |
|
State v. Pagenkopf
2020 ND 33
Highlight: A district court has wide discretion in setting the amount of restitution, and the district court does not abuse its discretion by awarding restitution that is within the range of reasonableness. |
|
Hustle Proof, et al. v. Matthews, et al.
2020 ND 32
Highlight: A party seeking relief from a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) must factually demonstrate exceptional circumstances. |
|
State v. Jensen
2020 ND 31 Highlight: Under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2), the moving party may file a reply brief within seven days after service of the answer brief. A motion is not submitted to the court for decision until all briefs are filed or the time for filing has expired. |
|
State v. Thomas
2020 ND 30
Highlight: A district court’s decision whether to grant a continuance will not be set aside on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. |
|
State v. Brown
2020 ND 29 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 5, East Central Judicial District
2020 ND 28 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo. |
|
Estate of Albrecht
2020 ND 27
Highlight: The district court’s factual findings in a partition action will not be reversed on appeal, unless they are clearly erroneous. |
|
Aftem Lake Developments Inc. v. Riverview Homeowners Assoc.
2020 ND 26 Highlight: A statutory dedication of property divests the donor of ownership in the property. |
|
State v. Wickham
2020 ND 25 Highlight: The district court did not obviously err by admitting fact testimony and by not stopping a witness from testifying by way of a mix of permissible lay opinion testimony and arguably impermissible expert opinion testimony. |
|
Krebsbach, et al. v. Trinity Hospitals, Inc., et al.
2020 ND 24
Highlight: Negligence claims relating to phlebotomy services performed by a hospital are governed by the two-year malpractice statute of limitations. |
|
Devore v. American Eagle Energy Corporation, et al.
2020 ND 23
Highlight: An employer of an independent contractor generally is not liable for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor. |
|
PHI Financial Services v. Johnston Law Office, et al. (consol. w/ 20190001)
2020 ND 22
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. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it is disclosed with certainty the impossibility of proving a claim upon which relief can be granted. |
|
State v. Mondragon
2020 ND 21 Highlight: When determining if there is good cause to continue when a defendant has elected his statutory speedy trial rights, failure of the court to address the factors will not be reversed if we are able to analyze the factors based on the record. A defendant cannot have the benefit of delay while simultaneously claiming the right to a speedy trial. A failure to show prejudice substantially weakens a speedy trial claim. |
|
Hondl v. State, et al.
2020 ND 20
Highlight: Absent personal jurisdiction, a court is powerless to do anything beyond dismissing without prejudice. |
|
Chisholm v. State
2020 ND 19
Highlight: District courts are required to dismiss an applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction relief counsel in a Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act proceeding. |
|
Konkel v. Amb
2020 ND 17
Highlight: A parent moving to modify parenting time must show that a material change in circumstances has occurred since entry of the prior parenting time order and that the modification is in the child’s best interests. |
|
Hauer v. Zerr, et al.
2020 ND 16
Highlight: A mistake of law arising out of ignorance of the law rather than a misapprehension of the law does not support the remedy of reformation. |
|
State v. Wallitsch
2020 ND 15 Highlight: The district court did not obviously err by not providing a curative instruction regarding a potential juror’s comments during voir dire. |
|
Ellis v. WSI
2020 ND 14 Highlight: The time for an appeal from a posthearing administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10 and ch. 28-32. The Legislature has set the time for an appeal to the district court at thirty days from the date notice of the order has been given as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-32-39, including service by mail. |
|
State v. Lail
2020 ND 13
Highlight: In murder for hire cases, taking actions that could reasonably lead to the hired individual committing the solicited killing constitute a substantial step in attempting to commit the underlying crime. |
|
Minn-Kota Ag Products, Inc. v. N.D. Public Service Commission, et al.
2020 ND 12
Highlight: Any person who is directly interested in the proceedings before an administrative agency, who is factually aggrieved by the decision of the agency, and who participates in the proceedings before the agency is a party and has standing to appeal from the decision of the agency. |
|
Cook v. Cook, et al.
2020 ND 11
Highlight: Technical violations of a court order do not necessarily require a finding of contempt. |
|
Reineke v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2020 ND 10 Highlight: Suspension of a driver's license must be done in accordance to law. |
|
Gustafson v. Poitra, et al.
2020 ND 9 Highlight: The appellants did not meet their burden under either Montana exception and did not explain how a district court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction by granting a remedy that may not be enforceable. The district court judgment is affirmed. |
|
Presswood v. Runyan
2020 ND 8
Highlight: The right to appeal is jurisdictional and, if we conclude we do not have jurisdiction, we will dismiss an appeal on our own motion. |
|
Jarvis v. WSI
2020 ND 7
Highlight: An appeal to a district court from a post-hearing administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10 and N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32. |
|
McDougall, et al. v. AgCountry Farm Credit Services, PCA, et al.
2020 ND 6 Highlight: The statute of frauds does not bar a deceit claim made by a third party to an unenforceable contract, who is not seeking to enforce the alleged agreement. |