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.
4351 - 4360 of 12418 results
|
Delvo v. State
2010 ND 78 Highlight: Summary disposition of a post-conviction relief application is appropriate if the applicant, after being put on notice the State was putting him to his or her proof, fails to supplement the application with competent admissible evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact. |
|
Tarnavsky v. Rankin
2010 ND 77 Highlight: Order denying motion for relief from judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1),(4), and (7), and double costs, including reasonable attorney fees in the nominal amount of $500, are awarded to the appellee for defending a frivolous appeal. |
|
Riemers v. Eslinger, et al.
2010 ND 76 Highlight: Under Article I, section 13 of the Constitution of North Dakota, a person has the right to a jury trial for the alleged violation of a municipal ordinance when the ordinance authorizes a fine of twenty or more dollars. |
|
State v. Koenig
2010 ND 75 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding the defendant guilty of allowing livestock to run at large is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (3), and (4). |
|
Skarsgard v. State (consolidated w/20090334-20090336)
2010 ND 74 Highlight: Order denying applications for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Wery v. State
2010 ND 73 Highlight: Order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
State v. Jackson
2010 ND 72 Highlight: A criminal judgment is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3). |
|
State v. Tibor
2010 ND 71 Highlight: A trial court order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Tarnavsky v. Tschider
2010 ND 70 Highlight: Summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6). |
|
Schmidt, et al. v. Gateway Community Fellowship, et al.
2010 ND 69 Highlight: To assess recreational use immunity in cases where recreational purposes are mixed with nonrecreational purposes, the proper inquiry requires analysis of the totality of the circumstances and all relevant social and economic aspects of the activity, including the extrinsic nature of the activity, the type of service or commodity offered to the public, and the activity's purpose and consequence. |