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.
4151 - 4160 of 12364 results
Everett v. State (cross-reference 20080063 and 20090244)
2010 ND 226 Highlight: Dismissal of application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District #29, et al.
2010 ND 225 Highlight: Judgment of dismissal in a wrongful termination case is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (4), and (6). |
State v. Delaney
2010 ND 224 Highlight: Conviction for gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Blurton v. State
2010 ND 223 Highlight: An order denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (6). |
State v. Berglund
2010 ND 222 Highlight: Conviction for a second or subsequent violation of a domestic violence protection order summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Missouri Breaks, et al. v. Burns, et al.
2010 ND 221
Highlight: A bankruptcy court's confirmation of a reorganization plan is binding on the debtor and any creditor, and, for purposes of res judicata, confirmation is a valid, final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction. |
Markwed Excavating, Inc. v. City of Mandan
2010 ND 220
Highlight: A clause in a construction contract prohibiting a contractor from recovering damages for delay and granting an extension of time is enforceable if the requirements for a valid contract are satisfied. |
Wong v. State
2010 ND 219 Highlight: A district court cannot on its own put an applicant for post-conviction relief to his proof. Only a party can move for summary disposition under post-conviction relief. |
Sanders v. Gravel Products, Inc. (cross-ref w/ 20080001)
2010 ND 218
Highlight: Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over participant or beneficiary suits to recover benefits under an ERISA plan, to enforce rights under the plan, or to clarify rights to future benefits. |
State v. Hager
2010 ND 217
Highlight: Federal securities laws do not preempt state securities laws that require registration of individuals involved in the sale of securities. |