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.
4201 - 4300 of 12418 results
|
State v. Moore
2010 ND 229
Highlight: The substance of a motion, not the district court's label, determines its proper classification. |
|
State v. Duffy
2010 ND 228 Highlight: Criminal judgment for assault summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Curran v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Insurance
2010 ND 227
Highlight: A preexisting injury is not compensable unless the employment substantially accelerates its progression or substantially worsens its severity. |
|
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. |
|
Gussiaas v. Neustel
2010 ND 216
Highlight: A move by a parent with primary residential responsibility either out-of-state or in-state, accompanied by other circumstances, may be viewed as a material change of circumstances. |
|
JLY Transport v. WSI
2010 ND 215 Highlight: The Workforce Safety & Insurance fund is not required to prove a compensable injury occurred before entering into a stipulated settlement with a worker. |
|
State v. Walker
2010 ND 214
Highlight: A defendant may be treated as the principal actor in a crime and convicted of an offense on the basis of the actions of an accomplice. |
|
Johnson v. State (CONSOLIDATED W/20090322)
2010 ND 213 Highlight: The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act does not entitle a district court, on its own motion, to dismiss a claim on the basis of the affirmative defenses of res judicata or misuse of process. |
|
Flemming v. Flemming
2010 ND 212 Highlight: A default divorce judgment is subject to N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and is not typically appropriate for appeal. |
|
Masset v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2010 ND 211 Highlight: Every administrative agency must maintain an official record of each adjudicative proceeding heard by it. |
|
State v. Aguero (Consol. w/ 20090254)
2010 ND 210
Highlight: The U.SConstitution forbids the routine use of visible physical restraints during the guilt phase of a criminal trial, unless the use is justified by an essential state interest. |
|
Holbach v. State (Consolidated w/ 20100142-20100146)
2010 ND 209 Highlight: District court orders denying application for post-conviction relief, order denying motion to amend the judgment, and order on request for return of personal property are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of Disbrow
2010 ND 208 Highlight: A district court order of commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of R.J. (CONFIDENTIAL)(CONS. w/20100299 - 20100303)
2010 ND 207 Highlight: Juvenile court's order terminating parental rights summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Nelson v. Nelson
2010 ND 206 Highlight: Divorce judgment denying request for spousal support summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Szklarski
2010 ND 205 Highlight: Judgment revoking probation summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Johnson (cross ref. 20100001)
2010 ND 204 Highlight: District court order denying a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Kidwell v. McLean County et al.
2010 ND 203 |
|
Vanderscoff v. Vanderscoff
2010 ND 202
Highlight: A motion for reconsideration may be treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) or as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). |
|
Lange v. Dep't of Transp.
2010 ND 201
Highlight: An arrestee has the responsibility to assert the right to an independent chemical test for intoxication. |
|
Renville v. Renville
2010 ND 200 Highlight: Trial court's valuation of parties' business in divorce proceedings summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Joyce v. Joyce
2010 ND 199
Highlight: A prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility requires facts that, if proved at an evidentiary hearing, would support a change of custody that could be affirmed if appealed. |
|
Johnson v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Insurance, et al.
2010 ND 198 Highlight: In reapplying for workers compensation disability benefits, a claimant must show both a significant change in a compensable medical condition and an actual wage loss caused by the significant change in the medical condition. |
|
Hoggarth, et al. v. Kropp
2010 ND 197
Highlight: "Disorderly conduct" for the purposes of a disorderly conduct restraining order depends on the total behavior of the respondent, not merely the particular content of speech. |
|
Marsden v. Koop
2010 ND 196
Highlight: An extramarital relationship may be relevant to primary residential responsibility if the children were affected by it. |
|
R.F. v. M.M., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 195
Highlight: When the plaintiff is not the appropriate party to bring an action under a statute, the court must give the party a reasonable time for ratification, joinder, or substitution of the real party in interest before dismissing the action. |
|
Entzie v. Entzie
2010 ND 194
Highlight: In calculating a child support obligation, a district court must specifically find an obligor's tax returns are not an adequate reflection of income or are not a reliable indicator of future income before the court can refuse to consider tax return information. |
|
State v. Fischer
2010 ND 193 Highlight: Criminal judgment for assault on a peace officer and terrorizing summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Interest of D.V.A. (CONFIDENTIAL) (Cross-Ref w/20080319)
2010 ND 192 Highlight: Order continuing commitment as sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
State v. Peltier
2010 ND 191 Highlight: Conviction on two counts of gross sexual imposition summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Matter of M.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 190 Highlight: Civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Fehl-Haber v. State
2010 ND 189 Highlight: Judgment denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Pankowski
2010 ND 188 Highlight: Conviction of possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and with intent to flee or attempt to elude a police officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Lucas
2010 ND 187 Highlight: Rule 4.2 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, prohibiting attorneys from communicating with a represented party, applies to attorneys who are representing themselves. |
|
Sailer v. Sailer
2010 ND 185
Highlight: The substantive enforceability of a premarital agreement is a matter of law to be decided by the court. |
|
State v. Adams
2010 ND 184
Highlight: Those who voluntarily choose to live with probationers assume the risk that they, too, will have diminished Fourth Amendment rights in areas shared with the probationer. |
|
Quality Bank, et al. v. Cavett
2010 ND 183
Highlight: Whether a contract is unconscionable is a question of law for the court to decide and depends upon the factual circumstances of each case. |
|
Bjarko v. State (consolidated w/20100071)
2010 ND 182 Highlight: Judgment denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Kraft
2010 ND 181 Highlight: Judgment of conviction of manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
|
Darby v. State
2010 ND 180 Highlight: District court amended order denying an application for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Penor
2010 ND 179 Highlight: Criminal judgment for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Interest of B.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 178 Highlight: District court judgment terminating parental rights instead of ordering a guardianship is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4). |
|
State v. Jackson
2010 ND 177 Highlight: Driving under suspension conviction summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
|
Rayas v. Marchus, et al.
2010 ND 176 Highlight: Dismissal of case barred by the applicable statute of limitations is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
Thompson v. Jaeger
2010 ND 174
Highlight: A word or a phrase repeated in a constitutional provision is generally given the same meaning throughout the constitution. |
|
Adoption of S.M.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 173
Highlight: A district court's decision cannot be reviewed when the court does not provide any indication of the evidentiary and theoretical basis for its decis |
|
Interest of S.L.W. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 172
Highlight: An alleged father cannot, in a subsequent paternity action, challenge a prior judgment disestablishing the paternity of a presumed or adjudicated father based upon an allegation that the prior action was barred by the statute of limitations. |
|
Interest of Maedche
2010 ND 171 Highlight: North Dakota's commitment of sexually dangerous individuals statute is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. |
|
Kannianen v. White
2010 ND 170 Highlight: When interpreting the language of a prior judgment, a court must presume that the original trial judge considered existing statutes and relevant caselaw, and intended the judgment to conform to the applicable legal standards. |
|
Investors Title Insurance Co. v. Herzig, et al. (Cross-Ref w/20090051)
2010 ND 169
Highlight: In construing a trust agreement, the primary objective is to ascertain the settlor's intent. |
|
Hector v. City of Fargo
2010 ND 168 Highlight: North Dakota law authorizes the creation of special improvement districts that include land outside the limits of a municipality. |
|
Ackre v. Chapman & Chapman, P.C.
2010 ND 167
Highlight: To have standing, a litigant must have suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action, the asserted harm must not be a generalized grievance shared by all or a large class of citizens, and the litigant generally must assert his or her own legal rights and interests and cannot rest a claim for relief on the legal rights and interests of third parties. |
|
Schwarz, et al. v. Gierke
2010 ND 166
Highlight: A denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reviewed under the de novo standard, unless the lower court's decision was based on factual findings, in which case the clearly erroneous standard applies. |
|
Peterson v. Peterson
2010 ND 165
Highlight: In awarding spousal support, the district court must consider the relevant factors of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. |
|
Bala, et al. v. State
2010 ND 164
Highlight: Eminent domain takes property because it is useful to the public, while the police power regulates the use of, or impairs rights in, property to prevent detriment to the public interest, and constitutional provisions against taking private property for public use without just compensation impose no barrier to the proper exercise of the police power. |
|
Matter of A.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 163
Highlight: Before an individual may be committed to the state hospital as a "sexually dangerous individual," the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the individual has engaged in sexually predatory conduct; (2) the individual has a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; (3) the condition makes the individual likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct which constitute a danger to the physical or mental health or safety of others; and (4) the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. |
|
Murphy v. Rossow
2010 ND 162
Highlight: A final judgment can be amended if it was the product of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. |
|
Snyder v. Snyder
2010 ND 161
Highlight: A divorcing party near retirement is not per se entitled to a reduced support obligation upon retirement. When substantial uncertainty surrounds a future retirement, the proper remedy is to move for modification upon retirement. |
|
Matter of J.D.F. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 160
Highlight: Rule 2.2, N.D.R.App.P., applies only to appeals from orders terminating parental rights. |
|
Estate of Cashmore
2010 ND 159
Highlight: Once a final judgment or order has been entered approving a final accounting and distribution of estate property, the estate proceedings are concluded and the parties are not authorized to file a petition to approve an amended final accounting under the statute. |
|
Lechler v. Lechler
2010 ND 158
Highlight: In a custody dispute, a court may interview children in chambers provided no party objects. |
|
Interest of M.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 157 Highlight: Long-term and intensive treatment for a parent is not required if it cannot be successfully undertaken in time to enable the children to be returned to the parental home without causing severe dislocation from emotional attachments formed during long-term foster care. |
|
Praus v. Praus
2010 ND 156
Highlight: Procedural unconscionability focuses on the formation of a settlement agreement and the fairness of the bargaining process, while substantive unconscionability focuses on the harshness or one-sidedness of the agreement's provisions. |
|
Zutz, et al. v. Kamrowski, et al.
2010 ND 155 Highlight: Under Minnesota law, a county attorney's statutory duties include providing advice to county commissioners, and an absolute privilege attaches to allegedly defamatory statements made in a contract investigator's report to a county attorney on matters involved in a county commission's request for advice. |
|
Matter of A.M.W. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 154
Highlight: A party seeking termination of the parent-child relationship in the context of an adoption must prove the elements necessary to support termination by clear and convincing evidence. |
|
Kortum, et al. v. Johnson, et al. (Cross-Ref w/20070186)
2010 ND 153
Highlight: Issues which are beyond the scope of a remand in a prior appeal will not be addressed in a subsequent appeal after remand. |
|
State v. Hammer
2010 ND 152
Highlight: A bank customer does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records, and the Fourth Amendment does not apply when the government obtains the customer's records from the bank by subpoena. |
|
Huber v. Farmer's Union Service Ass'n, et al.
2010 ND 151
Highlight: A provision of a contract must in and of itself be inherently illegal to be unlawful for purposes of N.D.C.C. 9-08-01. |
|
Richter v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2010 ND 150
Highlight: A stop or seizure occurs under the Fourth Amendment when a law enforcement officer has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen, and the mere approach and questioning of a person in a parked vehicle may not constitute a stop or seizure. |
|
S.H.B. v. T.A.H. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 149
Highlight: To establish abandonment under N.D.C.C. 27-20-02(1)(a), a petitioner seeking termination of a parent's parental rights must show that the parent intended to abandon the child. |
|
Pembina Co. Water Resource Brd. v. Cavalier Co. Water Resource Brd.
2010 ND 148 Highlight: A petitioner for a writ of mandamus must demonstrate that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. |
|
Interest of R.S. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 147 Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. 27-20-02(8)(a), "deprived child" means "a child who . . . [i]s without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals, and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial means of the child's parents, guardian, or other custodian." |
|
Petition to Change Judgeship No. 4 Chambers from New Rockford to Carrington
2010 ND 145 |
|
Petition to Change Judgeship No. 4 Chambers from New Rockford to Lisbon
2010 ND 145 |
|
Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, SEJD (see 20100169 and 20100174)
2010 ND 145 Highlight: Judgeship retained at New Rockford. |
|
State v. Blunt (cross-reference w/20070247)
2010 ND 144
Highlight: In determining what constitutes an acquittal, the label used by the district court is not conclusive and the reviewing court will consider the substance of the district court's ruling to determine whether it actually represents a resolution of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged. |
|
Woodward v. Woodward (Cross-Ref w/20080343 & 20090053)
2010 ND 143
Highlight: A district court judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and the test for appearance of impartiality is one of reasonableness and recusal is not required in response to spurious or vague charges of impartiality. |
|
Reciprocal Discipline of Kenny
2010 ND 142 Highlight: Lawyer reprimanded under Rule 4.4, N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl., governing reciprocal discipline. |
|
Thornton v. Klose
2010 ND 141
Highlight: A temporary child support order amending a prior divorce judgment and setting the parties' child support obligations for a period of one year is appealable. |
|
Melchior v. Lystad, et al.
2010 ND 140
Highlight: Summary judgment is appropriate if either litigant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and if no dispute exists as to either the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if resolving factual disputes will not alter the result. |
|
State v. Meador
2010 ND 139
Highlight: The retroactive application of the sexual offender registration statute is remedial and non-punitive and does not violate federal or state constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. |
|
Investors Title Insurance Co. v. Herzig, et al. (Consol. w/20090052)
2010 ND 138
Highlight: If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties. |
|
State v. Poitra
2010 ND 137
Highlight: A defendant claiming statements in an affidavit for a search warrant are false or misleading because important information was omitted must show: (1) law enforcement omitted facts with the intent or in reckless disregard of whether they made the affidavit misleading, and (2) the affidavit would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause if the omitted information had been included. |
|
Schirado v. Foote, et al.
2010 ND 136 Highlight: A nonparent seeking to qualify as a person acting as a parent under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act must claim a right to legal custody under the laws of North Dakota. At a minimum, this requires claiming right to legal custody prior to or simultaneous with commencement of the pending litigation. |
|
Interest of M.W. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 135
Highlight: When a child attains the age of twenty years, all juvenile court orders affecting the child then in force terminate and the child is discharged from further obligation or control. |
|
State v. Lehman
2010 ND 134
Highlight: To grant a judgment of acquittal, a court must find there is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. |
|
Halvorson, et al. v. Starr, et al.
2010 ND 133 Highlight: The computation of time for statutory notice of lapse of mineral interest is governed by N.D.C.C. 1-02-15, not the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. |
|
State v. Irwin
2010 ND 132 Highlight: A defendant does not suffer a manifest injustice when pleading guilty to a fifth DUI in seven years, although at the time of arrest he has not yet been convicted of his fourth DUI in seven years. |
|
Interest of C.H. (Confidential)
2010 ND 131 Highlight: In determining whether an individual is a "person requiring treatment," a district court must consider (1) whether the individual is "mentally ill," and (2) whether there is a reasonable expectation that, if the individual is not hospitalized, there exists a serious risk of harm to himself, others, or property. |
|
Boeckel v. Boeckel
2010 ND 130 Highlight: Where evidence of domestic violence exists, the district court must make specific and detailed findings regarding the application of the presumption against awarding custody to the perpetrator of domestic violence. |
|
State v. Everett
2010 ND 129 Highlight: Revocation of probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |