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.
4491 - 4500 of 12382 results
Riemers v. State
2009 ND 115
Highlight: When considering whether to allow individual speech on government property, courts employ a forum analysis for balancing the government's interest in limiting the use of its property and the interests of those wanting to use the property for expressive activity. |
Vanderscoff v. Vanderscoff
2009 ND 114 Highlight: District court order denying motion to amend spousal support obligation summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
Vicknair, et al. v. Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc., et al.
2009 ND 113 Highlight: The availability of an adequate alternative forum is a prerequisite to granting a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, and an adequate alternative forum does not exist if the statute of limitations has expired in the proposed alternative forum. |
Disciplinary Board v. Peterson
2009 ND 112 Highlight: Suspension of lawyer ordered. |
Disciplinary Board v. Wolff (Interim Suspension)
2009 ND 111 Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered. |
Khokha v. Shahin
2009 ND 110
Highlight: Evidence of a plaintiff's bad reputation or bad character is generally admissible in a defamation action. |
Miller v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
2009 ND 109
Highlight: Under North Dakota's workers compensation law and procedure, a "rehearing" is an evidentiary hearing. |
State v. Golden
2009 ND 108
Highlight: A district court may not grant a defendant's motion to suppress statements made to police officers while the defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation. |
Eberle v. Eberle
2009 ND 107
Highlight: Interlocutory orders generally are not appealable and may be revised or reconsidered any time before the final order or judgment is entered. |
Matter of Midgett (Cross-Ref. w/20070109)
2009 ND 106
Highlight: In addition to the three statutory requirements, the State must prove the committed individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior in order to satisfy substantive due process. |