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.
4121 - 4130 of 12446 results
|
State v. Zottnick
2011 ND 84 Highlight: A defendant may be entitled to a jury instruction on excuse and his conduct may be excused if there is evidence that the defendant believes the facts are such that conduct is necessary and appropriate for any of the purposes which would establish a justification or excuse under the criminal code, even though the defendant's believe is mistaken. |
|
A.R. Audit Services, Inc. v. Ulledahl
2011 ND 83 Highlight: Summary judgment awarding amount owed for medical services is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
State v. Erhart
2011 ND 82 Highlight: Criminal judgment for gross sexual imposition summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
State v. Beane (Consolidated w/20100341)
2011 ND 81 Highlight: Criminal judgments for possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
State v. Beane (cross-reference S.C. #20090013)
2011 ND 80 Highlight: Criminal judgment for possession of drug paraphernalia summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Mudge (Consolidated w/20100369-20100371)
2011 ND 79 Highlight: Criminal judgment and order denying requests for modification of sentence summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Blomdahl v. Blomdahl
2011 ND 78
Highlight: A motion for contempt under N.D.C.C. 14-05-25.1 is not an "action upon the judgment" for purposes of applying the ten-year statute of limitations in N.D.C.C. 28-01-15. |
|
Christensen v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services
2011 ND 77 Highlight: An applicant for Medicaid benefits has the responsibility to provide information sufficient to establish eligibility and has the burden of proving an asset is not actually available. |
|
Matter of Wolff
2011 ND 76
Highlight: In civil commitment cases, the State must clearly show the committed individual's personality disorder is likely to manifest itself in a serious difficulty in controlling his or her behavior. |
|
Schumacker v. Schumacker
2011 ND 75
Highlight: Merely conflicting allegations in affidavits and moving papers for a change in primary residential responsibility of parties' children must be resolved at an evidentiary hearing, unless the party opposing the movant has conclusively proved the movant's allegations are insufficient or have no credibility. |