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.
1951 - 2000 of 12418 results
|
Frontier Fiscal Services LLC v. Pinky's Aggregates, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 147
Highlight: The burden of proof ordinarily rests with the party who possesses the facts on the issue in dispute. |
|
Atkins v. State
2019 ND 146
Highlight: An applicant for post-conviction relief should have 14 days to respond to a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2). |
|
State v. Atkins
2019 ND 145
Highlight: A defendant may not avoid the procedures of the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act by designating his motion under a rule of criminal procedure or by filing his motion in his criminal file, rather than filing as a new action for post-conviction relief. |
|
Swenson, et al. v. Mahlum, et al.
2019 ND 144
Highlight: Order and judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and defendant’s third-party claims without prejudice was appealable because plaintiff’s claims were adjudicated and third-party claims were dependent on plaintiff’s claims. |
|
James Vault & Precast Co., et al. v. B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 143 Highlight: A contractual provision purporting to exempt anyone from responsibility for a willful or negligent violation of the law is against the policy of law and not enforceable. |
|
Lee v. Lee
2019 ND 142
Highlight: The district court’s property valuations were not clearly erroneous. |
|
Estate of Hogen
2019 ND 141
Highlight: A probate court has inherent authority to control its docket and to protect its jurisdiction and judgments, the integrity of the court, and the orderly and expeditious administration of justice, and may award attorney fees to further that end. |
|
State v. Peterson
2019 ND 140
Highlight: A district court found a sufficient factual basis to support the defendant’s guilty plea based on the record and the State’s offer of proof. |
|
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Behm
2019 ND 139
Highlight: Where eminent domain is exercised by a utility business, condemnation for service to a single industrial customer does not forestall a finding that the taking is for a public use. |
|
State v. Vetter
2019 ND 138
Highlight: A traffic stop is not expanded by incidental questions the officer asks without reasonable suspicion so long as they occur prior to the completion of the stop and the officer does not deliberately delay completion of the stop. |
|
Morales v. State
2019 ND 137
Highlight: Summary dismissal of a post-conviction application for ineffective assistance of counsel is appropriate if the applicant does not claim that, but for his attorney’s errors, he would have insisted on going to trial. |
|
Watford City Lodging LLC v. Miskin
2019 ND 136
Highlight: In summary eviction proceedings, the right to possession of the property is the only fact that can be litigated unless damages or rent is claimed. |
|
Olson v. State
2019 ND 135
Highlight: Accomplice to murder under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is a cognizable offense under North Dakota law. |
|
State v. Vigen
2019 ND 134 Highlight: An informed consent advisory omitting statutory language regarding refusal to submit to a urine test does not comply with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a). |
|
Ortega v. Sanford Bismarck, et al.
2019 ND 133
Highlight: The purpose of the expert opinion affidavit requirement under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46 is to screen totally unsupported claims and to prevent protracted litigation when a medical malpractice plaintiff cannot substantiate a basis for the claim. |
|
Sutton v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation
2019 ND 132
Highlight: Checking the boxes denoting an odor of alcohol and refusal of chemical testing, in combination with a note in the explanation box stating the driver declined field sobriety tests, is sufficient to render the Report and Notice Form adequate under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04. |
|
Bride v. Trinity Hospital, et al.
2019 ND 131
Highlight: A dismissal without prejudice is appealable if the statute of limitations has expired on the plaintiff’s claim, foreclosing further litigation in this state. |
|
Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Steffes, et al.
2019 ND 130
Highlight: An order granting a new trial is not reviewable without N.D.Civ.P. 54(b) certification. |
|
Heartland State Bank v. Larson, et al.
2019 ND 129
Highlight: A creditor must strictly comply with the statutory provisions relating to the foreclosure of a mortgage, including the provisions for notice before foreclosure. |
|
Twin City Technical LLC, et al. v. Williams County, et al.
2019 ND 128
Highlight: A county’s lease of minerals executed in violation of mandatory competitive bidding statutes renders the lease invalid. |
|
Jensen v. State
2019 ND 126
Highlight: A Rule 11(d) motion to withdraw a guilty plea, filed after entry of the criminal judgment and a stipulated dismissal of the direct appeal, is not a critical stage of the proceeding affording the movant the constitutional guarantee to counsel nor a stage of the proceeding requiring counsel under N.D.R.Crim.P. 44(a). |
|
Matter of J.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 125 Highlight: The State did not establish clear and convincing evidence of a nexus between J.M.’s disorder and his sexual dangerousness to others. |
|
Great Plains Royalty Corporation v. Earl Schwartz Company, et al.
2019 ND 124
Highlight: Collateral estoppel generally forecloses relitigation, in a second action based on a different claim, of a particular issue of either fact or law which was litigated and determined in a prior suit. |
|
State v. Craig
2019 ND 123
Highlight: A district court abused its discretion by scheduling a hearing on defendant’s motion and then cancelling the hearing without explanation leaving the defendant unable to complete a hearing request under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(3) on his own. |
|
State v. Gardner
2019 ND 122
Highlight: A claimant neither needs to be the addressee nor needs to live at the address on a package to claim a search and seizure right to the package. A claimant only needs to show a possessory interest in the package. |
|
Ali v. State
2019 ND 121 Highlight: District court’s finding that an application for post-conviction relief failed to establish counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness was not clearly erroneous. |
|
Curtiss v. State
2019 ND 120 Highlight: A district court’s order denying application for post-conviction relief and order denying motions for reconsideration and to correct a sentence are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), (6), and (7). |
|
Lavallie v. State
2019 ND 119 Highlight: A district court order summarily dismissing a post-conviction relief application is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of F.M.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 118 Highlight: Continuing treatment order summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Johnson
2019 ND 117 Highlight: A district court’s order denying a motion to return bond is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Keller v. State
2019 ND 116 Highlight: Summary affirmance of district court’s denial of post-conviction relief. |
|
Interest of T.A.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2019 ND 115 Highlight: The case is remanded for additional findings of fact on whether a person was likely to reoffend and had serious difficulty controlling behavior, as required to deny sex offender discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. |
|
Ayling v. Sens, et al.
2019 ND 114
Highlight: An action barred by a statute of limitations generally is dismissed under the summary judgment standards of N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. |
|
Condon v. St. Alexius Medical Center, et al.
2019 ND 113
Highlight: Section 32-42-02, N.D.C.C., does not violate the equal-protection provisions of N.D. Const. art. I, § 21. |
|
Tschider v. Tschider, et al.
2019 ND 112
Highlight: A premarital agreement may be unenforceable if it is unconscionable at the time of execution, at the time of separation or marital dissolution, or at the time of enforcement. |
|
Thompson, et al. v. Johnson
2019 ND 111 Highlight: District court erred on remand by finding child support obligor underemployed without explaining why its prior determination the obligor had a gross annual income of $171,560.66 and net annual income of $113,916 was incorrect. |
|
Interest of K.S.D. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated with 20180261)
2019 ND 110
Highlight: Motion to withdraw consent to termination of parental rights was untimely under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-45(6) because it was made more than thirty days after the order terminating parental rights was issued. |
|
Rhodenbaugh v. Rhodenbaugh
2019 ND 109
Highlight: Interlocutory orders in an action are merged into the final judgment and may be reviewed on appeal of the judgment. |
|
State v. Valles
2019 ND 108 Highlight: For a warrantless search or seizure to fall into the abandonment exception, the State must show evidence of abandonment was present through objective facts known to the officer at the time of the search or seizure. Further, even when a cell phone is considered abandoned, a search of its contents is always considered unreasonable and thus is not permitted without a warrant. |
|
Estate of Bartelson
2019 ND 107 Highlight: An appeal only from the denial of a motion for reconsideration does not permit the appellant to attack the underlying order from which the appeal could have been taken but was not brought. |
|
State v. Stenhoff
2019 ND 106
Highlight: Search of supervised probationer’s residence was constitutional where the probationer was incarcerated due to a probation violation, the supervised probation conditions included a search clause, and law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion unlawful activity was afoot due to a child’s statement alluding to the presence of drugs at the probationer’s residence. |
|
State v. Odum
2019 ND 105
Highlight: Under the totality of the circumstances, probable cause existed for a search warrant based on evidence found during garbage search. |
|
Lupo v. McNeeley, et al.
2019 ND 104 Highlight: The statute of limitations of a claim for relief is not tolled by the defendant’s absence from the state under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-32 when the state’s courts can obtain jurisdiction by completing service of process by publication. |
|
Garcia v. State
2019 ND 103 Highlight: A finalized criminal sentence may not be reduced by statute. |
|
WSI v. Eight Ball Trucking, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 102
Highlight: A summary judgment entered after a defendant fails to respond to the motion for summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits and not a default judgment. |
|
State v. Mohamud
2019 ND 101
Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss for undue delay. |
|
Lavallie v. State
2019 ND 100 Highlight: District court erred by reducing a criminal sentence based on a statute enacted after the conviction had been finalized. |
|
State v. Comes
2019 ND 99 Highlight: Rule 35, N.D.R.Crim.P., requires notice of intent to correct a sentence be given to the parties. |
|
Sabo, et al. v. Job Service
2019 ND 98
Highlight: The doctrine of administrative res judicata prevents collateral attacks on administrative agency final orders. |
|
Pavlicek v. American Steel Systems, Inc., et al.
2019 ND 97
Highlight: A district court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue. |