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.
3601 - 3700 of 12418 results
Johnson v. Bronson, et al.
2013 ND 78
Highlight: A prima facie case of medical negligence requires expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, violation of that standard, and a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of. |
State v. Romero
2013 ND 77
Highlight: Allowing the jury to view the scene of a charged offense rests in the trial court's sound discretion. |
Bachmeier v. Bachmeier
2013 ND 76
Highlight: An otherwise valid parenting plan that was attached to the judgment will not be invalidated because the district court did not recite formulaic words of incorporation. |
Interest of S.R.B. (Confidential)
2013 ND 75
Highlight: In an expedited appeal taken from an order for hospitalization and treatment, a trial court must make findings of fact specially under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) as to whether the respondent is a person requiring treatment and hospitalization is the least restrictive treatment. |
City of Grafton v. Wosick
2013 ND 74
Highlight: No obvious error is shown when the defendant anticipated the charge and prepared for trial accordingly. |
Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Creighton, et al.
2013 ND 73
Highlight: Deciding an issue on a motion for summary judgment is not appropriate if there are disputed factual issues or if reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts. |
Gadeco v. Industrial Commission, et al. (cross-ref. w/20110131 & 20110140)
2013 ND 72
Highlight: The Industrial Commission has discretion to evaluate compliance with the requirements for an invitation to participate in the costs of drilling a well. |
Dieterle v. Dieterle
2013 ND 71
Highlight: A district court need not make separate findings of fact for each of the best-interest factors, a court's findings regarding one factor may be applicable to another factor, and a court need not consider irrelevant factors in its decision on primary residential responsibility for a child. |
Waslaski v. State (cross-reference w/ 20120257)
2013 ND 70
Highlight: A motion for reconsideration is not a formally recognized motion and is not one of the enumerated appealable orders. |
Jassek v. Workforce Safety and Insurance
2013 ND 69 Highlight: A binding dispute resolution decision under N.D.C.C. 65-02-20 requested by a medical provider concerning a request for treatment is not appealable to the district court. |
Interest of Hoff
2013 ND 68
Highlight: A district court's decision whether to require an individual to be restrained during a civil commitment proceeding is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. |
Steen v. State (consolidated w/20120399 - 20120402)
2013 ND 67 Highlight: Appeal from order denying application for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
Ennen v. State (cross-reference with 20110003)
2013 ND 66 Highlight: An appeal from an order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Interest of J.P. (Confidential) (consolidated with 20130057 & 20130058)
2013 ND 65 Highlight: Juvenile court judgments terminating a mother's parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
Waslaski v. State
2013 ND 64 Highlight: A district court judgment summarily dismissing a petition for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust (Cross-reference w/20080209,20120141,20120241)
2013 ND 63 Highlight: An order denying a motion to vacate an order reforming a trust is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4). |
Dawson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2013 ND 62
Highlight: Hearsay statements may not be admitted under the present sense impression exception when a sufficient lapse in time has occurred between the event and the declarant's statement, allowing for reflective thought. |
Interest of M.H.P. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2013 ND 61
Highlight: The Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars review of a juvenile court finding that a juvenile who committed a delinquent act is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation. |
Larson, et al. v. Norheim, et al.
2013 ND 60
Highlight: The owners of a mineral interest may preserve their interest by recording a statement of claim within sixty days of the publication of a notice of lapse of mineral interest. |
Kruckenberg v. State (cross-reference w/20080106 & 20110333)
2013 ND 59 Highlight: Order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
Woodward v. Woodward
2013 ND 58
Highlight: When deciding whether spousal support is appropriate, even if a spouse can be rehabilitated, a court may award permanent spousal support to ensure one party does not bear the brunt of the overall reduction in standard of living. |
K & L Homes, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co.
2013 ND 57
Highlight: In an insurance policy, an exception to an exclusion may result in coverage, but is applicable only if the policy initially grants coverage and an exclusion precluding coverage applies. |
Waslaski v. State
2013 ND 56 Highlight: Arguments raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be considered by this Court. |
State v. Farrell
2013 ND 55 Highlight: The Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act provides no relief by dismissing criminal judgments entered before the request for disposition of charges, nor does it make available monetary relief. |
State v. Doppler
2013 ND 54
Highlight: A trial court abuses its discretion if the record does not show the court meaningfully or appropriately considered the relevant factors under N.D.R.Ev. 609(a)(1) when weighing a prior conviction's probative value and prejudicial effect. |
Nienow v. Anderson
2013 ND 53 Highlight: The N.D. Department of Human Service's determination of whether income is recurring is a finding of fact which will not be overturned on appeal unless it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. |
Niles, et al. v. Eldridge
2013 ND 52
Highlight: Issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered. |
HIT, Inc. v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services
2013 ND 51 Highlight: The N.D. Department of Human Services may set the margin requiring a refund of Individualized Supported Living Arrangements overpayments and does not require the margin be calculated in a particular way. |
Estate of Christeson, et al. v. Gilstad, et al.
2013 ND 50
Highlight: When interpreting a statute, it must be presumed the legislature intended all that it said, said all that it intended to say, and meant what it has plainly expressed. |
State v. Stegall (consolidated w/ 20120365, 20120386)
2013 ND 49
Highlight: The fugitive-dismissal rule does not apply to a defendant who absconds during pre-trial and trial proceedings. |
Hoverson v. Hoverson
2013 ND 48
Highlight: A property distribution need not be equal to be equitable, but a substantial disparity must be explained. |
Jensen v. Deaver
2013 ND 47
Highlight: A restriction of parenting time must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and accompanied by a detailed demonstration of the physical or emotional harm likely to result from visitation. |
Hayden, et al. v. Medcenter One, Inc., et al.
2013 ND 46
Highlight: The proper method for a party to seek additional time for discovery is to make a motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(f). |
Matter of C.J.S.
2013 ND 45 Highlight: A district court judgment changing a child's surname is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Wisham
2013 ND 44 Highlight: A criminal judgment for contributing to the delinquency of a minor is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (3). |
State v. Bentz
2013 ND 43 Highlight: Criminal judgment for terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Froistad v. Schmalenberger, et al.
2013 ND 42 Highlight: A district court order summarily dismissing Froistad's petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
Gaede v. State
2013 ND 41 Highlight: District court judgment denying an applicant's petition for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
Estate of Dionne (cross-reference w/20090016 and 20100353)
2013 ND 40
Highlight: A will does not need to be admitted to probate when a valid distribution agreement signed by all parties with a possible claim in the estate disposes of all property in the estate. |
Disciplinary Board v. Gross
2013 ND 39 Highlight: Lawyer publicly reprimanded. |
Hysjulien v. Hill Top Home of Comfort, et al.
2013 ND 38
Highlight: The time for filing a claim for an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or the Human Rights Act depends on whether the claim raises discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts or alleges a hostile work environment. |
Hanisch v. Kroshus
2013 ND 37
Highlight: A district court has discretion in deciding to grant a disorderly conduct restraining order and to conduct a hearing on a petition for an order. |
Mees v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2013 ND 36
Highlight: The Intoxilyzer test record and checklist is presumed to show fair administration of the approved method until the defendant shows that the evidence as a whole clearly negates the presumed fact. |
Barrett, et al. v. Gilbertson
2013 ND 35
Highlight: A party claiming a breach of contract must prove the existence of a contract, a breach of the contract, and damages which flow from the breach. |
Davis v. State (cross-reference w/20080331 & 20090093)
2013 ND 34
Highlight: Discovery in the post-conviction context requires good cause and may be used only to the extent and in the manner the district court has ordered. |
Bakken, et al. v. Duchscher, et al.
2013 ND 33
Highlight: Extrinsic evidence may not be used to vary or contradict the terms of an unambiguous agreement or to create an ambiguity. |
Interest of S.R.L.
2013 ND 32
Highlight: An award of joint residential responsibility will be affirmed if supported by sufficient findings of fact consistent with the children's best interests. |
Guardianship of J.S.L.F.
2013 ND 31
Highlight: A guardianship proceeding is an inappropriate method for testing the fitness of a parent. |
Riemers v. Jaeger
2013 ND 30
Highlight: A party seeking writs of mandamus, prohibition, or injunction must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested. |
Hageman v. Hageman
2013 ND 29
Highlight: A district court's decision to modify primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact, subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. |
Morrow v. Ziegler
2013 ND 28
Highlight: The requirement that an officer include his or her observation that a driver's body contained alcohol on the report and notice is basic and mandatory for the Department of Transportation to have authority to suspend the driver's license for refusal to submit to an onsite screening test. |
Burgard v. Burgard
2013 ND 27
Highlight: A motion made under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is the exclusive remedial procedure to set aside a default judgment. |
Matter of J.G. (CONFIDENTIAL) (cross-ref. w/20100366)
2013 ND 26 Highlight: Whether an individual engaged in sexually predatory conduct is barred by res judicata from being relitigated on a petition for discharge. |
Dahl v. State (Consolidated w/20120211)(Cross-reference w/20090262)
2013 ND 25
Highlight: The district court has discretion in deciding whether to grant a defendant's request for a bifurcated trial in a case in which there is an issue of lack of criminal responsibility. |
Olson, et al. v. Job Service, et al.
2013 ND 24 Highlight: The phrase "a claimant's work stoppage dispute of any kind" in N.D.C.C. 52-06-02(4) refers to employee-initiated work stoppages, and an employer's lockout of its employees as a result of a labor dispute is not an employee-initiated work stoppage. |
State v. Kusy
2013 ND 23 Highlight: A criminal judgment for luring a minor by computer and for sexual assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
State v. Flah
2013 ND 22 Highlight: A district court judgment of conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia after a jury trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
In the Matter of Finstad (CONFIDENTIAL)
2013 ND 21 Highlight: Transferred to incapacity to practice law status. |
Disciplinary Board v. McDonagh (Cross-ref. w/ 20110167,20120237 & 20120238)
2013 ND 20 Highlight: Lawyer discipline ordered. |
Reciprocal Discipline of Kleinsmith
2013 ND 19 Highlight: Lawyer reprimand and probation ordered. |
Reciprocal Discipline of Kitchen
2013 ND 18 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
A.G. Golden, et al. v. SM Energy Company
2013 ND 17
Highlight: An area of mutual interest clause is not a covenant that runs with the land, but is a personal covenant that is enforceable only between the original parties to the agreement. |
Capps, et al. v. Weflen, et al.
2013 ND 16 Highlight: Certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) should not be routinely granted and is reserved for cases involving unusual circumstances where failure to allow an immediate appeal would create a demonstrated prejudice or hardship. |
Dakota Heritage Bank v. Pankonin, et al.
2013 ND 15 Highlight: District court order denying a motion for relief from summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
Riedlinger, et al. v. Steam Brothers, Inc.
2013 ND 14
Highlight: A contract is ambiguous if rational arguments can be made for different interpretations of the contract. |
Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, et al. (Cons. w/20120214)
2013 ND 13 Highlight: The district court is required to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms. |
Sateren v. Sateren
2013 ND 12
Highlight: Generally, individuals that unconditionally, voluntarily, and consciously accept a substantial benefit from a divorce judgment waive the right to appeal the judgment. |
Interest of J.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2013 ND 11 Highlight: A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether a proffered expert witness's testimony will assist the trier of fact and in evaluating whether there is an adequate factual basis for the expert's opinion. |
Coppage v. State
2013 ND 10
Highlight: N.D.R.Ev. 609 governs the admission of evidence of certain criminal convictions for the purpose of attacking a witness's general character for truthfulness. Rule 609 does not apply to the admission of evidence of a prior conviction for purposes of impeachment by contradiction. |
Sweeney v. Kirby
2013 ND 9 Highlight: A party seeking to modify primary residential responsibility who provides competent evidence demonstrating a prima facie case for modification is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. |
State v. Chacano
2013 ND 8
Highlight: A failure to make a proper trial objection to evidence prevents a defendant from arguing on appeal the trial court erred in admitting the evidence. |
Pederson v. State
2013 ND 7 Highlight: Judgment denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Chase
2013 ND 6 Highlight: Conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a child summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
Poitra v. State (cross-reference w/20090339)
2013 ND 5 Highlight: Order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Vetter
2013 ND 4 Highlight: A vehicle may be found to be a dangerous weapon under N.D.C.C. 12.1-01-04(6). |
Adoption of D.J.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2013 ND 3 Highlight: Civil judgment denying an applicant's petition for adoption is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Holkesvig v. Moore (Cross-reference w/20110007)
2013 ND 2 Highlight: District court order denying a motion to vacate judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (7). |
Holkesvig v. State (Consolidated w/20120334)
2013 ND 1 Highlight: District court judgment summarily dismissing petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
State v. Baesler (consolidated w/20120296)
2012 ND 262 Highlight: Possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia convictions are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Matter of M.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)(cross-ref. w/20080082 & 20100058)
2012 ND 261
Highlight: When a person committed as a sexually dangerous individual petitions for discharge, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual. |
Nuveen v. Nuveen (cross-reference w/20100134 & 20120080)
2012 ND 260
Highlight: When considering an upward deviation in child support a court does not need to find specific needs that the children lack to justify a deviation. |
Specialized Contracting, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., et al.
2012 ND 259
Highlight: The statutory rules for interpreting indemnity contracts are included in every indemnity contract unless a contrary intention appears in the contract. |
Howard, et al. v. Trotter, et al.
2012 ND 258
Highlight: Congressional section lines are open for public travel without the necessity of any governmental action. |
MayPort Farmers Co-Op v. St. Hilaire Seed Company, Inc.
2012 ND 257
Highlight: Conflicts in the evidence will not be reweighed, and credibility of witnesses will not be reassessed on appeal. |
Interest of J.N. (Confidential) (consolidated with 20120390)
2012 ND 256
Highlight: A specific finding that the child is currently deprived is a necessary prerequisite to termination of parental rights under N.D.C.C. 27-20-44(1)(c). |
Lund v. Lund, et al.
2012 ND 255
Highlight: The phrase "transacting any business in this state" in the long-arm jurisdiction provision under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(b)(2)(A) must be given a broad, expansive interpretation. |
Interest of T.H. (CONFIDENTIAL)(cross reference with 20110084)
2012 ND 254
Highlight: Unless a statute imposing a time limit declares that the time limit is jurisdictional, the time limit will not be treated as affecting the jurisdiction of a court or administrative agency. |
D.E. v. K.F., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2012 ND 253
Highlight: A presumption of paternity arises when a man is married to the mother of a child and the child is born during the marriage. |
State v. Benefiel (Consolidated w/20120275)
2012 ND 252 Highlight: Two district court orders revoking a defendant's probation and resentencing him to five years' imprisonment are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
State v. Wolfgram
2012 ND 251 Highlight: Criminal judgment sentencing defendant to imprisonment within statutory range summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
Interest of Voisine (Cross-reference w/20090182 & 20100163)
2012 ND 250 Highlight: 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). |
Disciplinary Board v. McCray
2012 ND 249 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
Deyle v. Deyle
2012 ND 248
Highlight: District courts must look both forward and backward when making primary residential responsibility findings under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2(1)(d) after factor (d) was amended in 2009. |
State v. Herzig
2012 ND 247 Highlight: When a legitimate dispute exists as to whether a road is a public road by prescription, resolution should take place civilly and not in a criminal trespass action. |
Ehlen v. Melvin, et al.
2012 ND 246
Highlight: For the existence of a contract, the parties must consent to the agreement, and consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense. |
Niska v. Falconer
2012 ND 245
Highlight: A district court's finding of domestic violence may be based on actual harm, or the infliction of fear of imminent harm. |
Muldoon v. WSI, et al.
2012 ND 244
Highlight: Conflicting testimony will not be reweighed and credibility of witnesses will not be reassessed on appeal. |
State v. Dominguez
2012 ND 243
Highlight: A trial court may not grant a new trial on its own motion and may act only upon a timely motion made by the defendant. |
State, ex rel. Madden v. Rustad, et al.
2012 ND 242 Highlight: Under the Confrontation Clause, an accused is entitled to confront witnesses who make testimonial statements in analytical reports. |
Haag v. State
2012 ND 241 Highlight: The Board of Pharmacy has authority to adopt administrative rules designating prohibited controlled substances, and upon becoming effective, a final administrative rule designating a prohibited controlled substance has the force and effect of law. |