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.
1801 - 1850 of 12446 results
|
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. |
|
Aldinger v. Aldinger
2020 ND 5
Highlight: Judgment affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4), and (7). |
|
Behm v. Behm
2020 ND 4 Highlight: A divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Gabel v. Thompson
2020 ND 3 Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Friesz v. State
2020 ND 2 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Chatman v. State
2020 ND 1 Highlight: District court orders summarily denying an application for post–conviction relief, a motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, and a motion for reconsideration are affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6),(7). |
|
Palmer, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc.
2019 ND 306 Highlight: In a collateral attack of a federal district court’s final judgment in a class action, review is limited to an examination of procedural due process. The court must determine (1) whether there were safeguards in place to guarantee sufficient notice and adequate representation; and (2) whether such safeguards were, in fact, applied. |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 7, South Central Judicial District (consol. 20190371)
2019 ND 305 |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6, South Central Judicial District (consol. 20190346)
2019 ND 305 |
|
Interest of G.L.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 304 |
|
Rath v. Rath
2019 ND 303 Highlight: District court orders denying a motion for an extension, denying a motion to amend the parenting plan and child support, and denying a motion for relief from order and new trial are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4). |
|
Interest of Voisine
2019 ND 302 Highlight: The evidence does not support the conclusion that the civilly committed resident remains a sexually dangerous individual and is clearly erroneous. The order denying the petition for discharge is reversed. |
|
Lessard v. Johnson
2019 ND 301
Highlight: A district court has discretion in deciding whether to grant a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59. |
|
State v. Komrosky
2019 ND 300
Highlight: Warrantless discovery of evidence in a defendant’s home is justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement if entry was actually motivated by a perceived need to render aid or assistance. |
|
Thomas v. Thomas
2019 ND 299 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. A district court is not bound to accept stipulations regarding custody and care of children if it finds the stipulations are not in the best interests of the child. A district court’s findings and conclusions regarding the presumption and stipulations should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to understand the basis for its decision. |
|
State v. Rose
2019 ND 298
Highlight: Statutes are generally not retroactive unless the legislature expressly declares so. |
|
Edwardson v. State
2019 ND 297
Highlight: Whether a petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact and is fully reviewable on appeal. The district court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. |
|
Skaw ND Precast, LLC v. Oil Capital Ready Mix, LLC, et al.
2019 ND 296
Highlight: When a lessor sells property that is subject to an unfulfilled lease, the buyer takes the property subject to the terms of the lease. |
|
Open Road Trucking v. Swanson, et al.
2019 ND 295 Highlight: A judgment debtor who pays more than his or her proportionate share of a judgment may take an assignment of the judgment for the purpose of enforcing contribution against co-debtors. |
|
WSI v. Salat, et al.
2019 ND 294 Highlight: A reasoning mind could reasonably determine the claimant was unable to work and earn as much as he earned at the time of his injury and the claimant suffered low back pain that was attributable to the compensable work injury after November 11, 2016. |
|
Lindstrom v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2019 ND 293 Highlight: A reasoning mind could have reasonably found a report and notice was forwarded to the Department within five days of the issuance of the temporary operator’s permit as required by law. The hearing officer’s decision to suspend the appellant’s license for 180 days is affirmed. |
|
State v. Walker
2019 ND 292 Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered restitution against a defendant who pled guilty to theft for possession of a stolen motorcycle, and that motorcycle was returned damaged to the victim. |
|
Stein v. State
2019 ND 291 Highlight: A district court was not clearly erroneous in denying the application for post-conviction relief. |
|
State v. Comes
2019 ND 290 Highlight: When both N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1 and N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(1) apply to a defendant’s sentence, the defendant is not eligible for parole until eighty-five percent of the sentence has been served or thirty years after admission to the penitentiary, whichever is greater. |
|
State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber
2019 ND 289
Highlight: Res judicata principles prohibit the review of arguments raised in earlier appeals. |
|
Neutman v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2019 ND 288 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b). |
|
Jesser v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2019 ND 287 Highlight: A driver’s limited post-arrest statutory right to counsel does not apply prior to arrest, and the holding in Kuntz v. State Highway Commissioner, 405 N.W.2d 285 (N.D. 1987) is not extended to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14. |
|
City of Fargo v. Wieland
2019 ND 286
Highlight: Flood control projects are a public use for eminent domain purposes. |
|
Lebeau v. State
2019 ND 285 Highlight: An order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4). |
|
State v. Dubois
2019 ND 284 Highlight: A district court is authorized to revoke probation for a violation prior to expiration or termination of probation under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6). A court has discretion in sentencing and need not explicitly reference the statutory sentence factors when fixing a sentence. Section 12.1-32-07(6), N.D.C.C., permits a district court to impose any sentence available at the initial time of sentencing upon revocation of probation. Issues not raised in the district court cannot generally be raised for the first time on appeal, absent obvious error. |
|
State v. Pailing
2019 ND 283 Highlight: A district court did not violate the defendant’s due process rights or abuse its discretion in overruling the defendant’s objection and denying the motion for mistrial concerning the State’s anecdote during closing argument. |
|
State Tax Commissioner v. Bosset
2019 ND 282 Highlight: A district court summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (6) and (7). |
|
Wilber v. Scaff
2019 ND 281 Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Continental Resources v. N.D. Dep't. of Environmental Quality
2019 ND 280 Highlight: Where the legislature has deferred to an administrative agency’s expertise to develop rules, and has declined to provide clear direction on the substance of the rules to be developed, the “purely legal question” exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply. |
|
Saastad v. Saastad
2019 ND 279
Highlight: A district court’s award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. |
|
State v. Job
2019 ND 278 Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. |
|
Matter of O.H.W. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 277 Highlight: A district court’s order denying a petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Legare
2019 ND 276 Highlight: An Alford plea does not preserve non-jurisdictional claims for appeal. |
|
Krump-Wooton v. Krump
2019 ND 275 Highlight: A district court’s judgment denying a motion to modify parenting time and a motion to modify primary residential responsibility is affirmed. |
|
State v. Maines (consolidated w/20180396)
2019 ND 274 Highlight: A district court may extend an offenders’ sentence if the offender is found to be a habitual offender under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09. Section 12.1-32-02(9), N.D.C.C., does not apply to an offender’s out of state felony convictions for purposes of determining if the offender is a habitual offender. Section 12.1-32-09, N.D.C.C., specifically refers to convictions in another state and defines a felony in another state as one that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or more, regardless of the actual punishment imposed. |