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.
3751 - 3760 of 12358 results
State v. Eide (consolidated w/20110264-20110269)
2012 ND 129 Highlight: A district court must comply with a statutory notice requirement prior to modifyig probation. |
Matter of Wedmore
2012 ND 128 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). |
Interest of Tanner
2012 ND 127 Highlight: An order civilly committing a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Palmer (Consolidated w/20120078)(cross-reference w/20010125 & 20110347)
2012 ND 126 Highlight: A district court order denying a motion to dismiss a probation revocation petition and revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
Foreid v. State (cross-reference w/20080128, 20100325, & 20110315)
2012 ND 125 Highlight: A district court order summarily dismissing a petition for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
Disciplinary Board v. Mahler
2012 ND 124 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
Haugland v. City of Bismarck
2012 ND 123
Highlight: Urban renewal statutes authorize a municipality to engage in an enterprise for a public purpose within the meaning of the gift clause provision of the state constitution. |
Kosobud v. Kosobud
2012 ND 122
Highlight: Assets accumulated after separation but prior to divorce are included in the marital estate. |
Skachenko v. Skachenko
2012 ND 121
Highlight: A district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a party's motion to use frozen marital funds to conduct a business evaluation when the moving party has access to non-frozen, separate funds and has not addressed why the non-frozen, separate funds cannot be used. |
State v. Schmidt
2012 ND 120
Highlight: A private party cannot be considered an agent of the State merely because a police officer requested surveillance video from him as part of the investigation. |