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.
4571 - 4580 of 12446 results
McArthur v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Insurance
2009 ND 96 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an order of Workforce Safety & Insurance denying further disability and vocational rehabilitation benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). |
Interest of S.J., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) (Consolidated w/20080329)
2009 ND 95 Highlight: Termination of parental rights summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Nash
2009 ND 94 Highlight: Order denying motion to vacate a default judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
State v. Kurtenbach (consolidated w/20080339 & 20080340)
2009 ND 93 Highlight: Criminal judgments for theft by deception, theft of property, forgery, giving false information to law enforcement and unauthorized use of personal identifying information are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
Johnson v. State
2009 ND 92 Highlight: Judgment denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 3, Southwest Judicial District
2009 ND 91 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Dickinson. |
Eslinger v. WSI, et al.
2009 ND 90
Highlight: The retirement presumption contained in N.D.C.C. 65-05-09.3(2), providing that a disabled employee who becomes eligible to receive social security retirement benefits is considered to be retired and no longer eligible for workers compensation disability benefits, does not apply to claimants who have been receiving continuing, regular, and ongoing disability benefits since before July 31, 1995, the effective date of the statute. |
Kappenman, et al. v. Klipfel, et al.
2009 ND 89
Highlight: A township board with actual knowledge of an unusually hazardous or unusulally dangerous condition on an unimproved section line road has a duty to warn travelers of that condition; actual knowledge given to at least one member of the township board impose the duty. |
Rutherford v. BNSF Railway Co.
2009 ND 88
Highlight: Equitable estoppel may preclude the application of the statute of limitations by a party whose actions induced another party not to file a claim within a prescribed statutory period. To raise a claim of equitable estoppel before a trial court, a party does not necessarily have to use the word "estoppel"; however, the opposing party has to be provided with fair notice of the claim. An issue not properly raised before the district court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. |
Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Insurance, et al
2009 ND 87
Highlight: A corporation is an artificial person that must act through its agents, and a corporation may not be represented by a non-attorney agent in a legal proceeding. |