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.
31 - 40 of 12274 results
|
Vetter v. Vetter, et al.
2026 ND 36
Highlight: Arguments that are not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed on appeal are not considered and are deemed waived. |
|
State v. Maher
2026 ND 35
Highlight: This Court will only vacate a district court's sentencing decision if the court acted outside statutorily prescribed limits or substantially relied on an impermissible factor. |
|
City of Dickinson v. Helgeson
2026 ND 34
Highlight: The failure to display a license plate under Dickinson Municipal Code § 58-705 constituted a noncriminal violation. |
|
Rent Daddy's v. Gamel, et al.
2026 ND 33 Highlight: The district court's eviction judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (7) and (8). |
|
Interest of S.M.
2026 ND 32 Highlight: The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Rousseau v. Armstrong, et al.
2026 ND 31 Highlight: A party does not have a right to appeal if there is no final judgment or order under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-01. A dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is presumed to be without prejudice. |
|
State v. Eggleston
2026 ND 30 Highlight: To establish a due process violation based on pre-indictment delay, a defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice. Similarly, to establish a due process violation based upon the State's failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice. When the State fails to preserve evidence that was at one point in the State's possession, a defendant must also present evidence of bad faith, meaning the State deliberately destroyed evidence with the intent to deprive the defense of information. Mere speculation that unpreserved evidence might have been exculpatory is not enough to show actual prejudice. |
|
Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone
2026 ND 29
Highlight: A district court can deviate upward from the presumptive child support guideline amount if it is in the best interest of a child and one or more of the enumerated criteria under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2) is met. A district court's findings explaining why an upward deviation is in the best interest of a child, and explaining the amount of an upward deviation, are explicit enough if the Court is able to understand from them the factual basis for the district court's determination. |
|
Interest of J.C.
2026 ND 28 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of S.C.Y.
2026 ND 28 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |