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.
4501 - 4600 of 12382 results
State v. Ripley (consolidated w/20080291)
2009 ND 105
Highlight: When determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to continue a trial, this Court uses the same factors that are used to determine whether a trial court had good cause to grant a motion to continue a trial. The factors are: (1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) defendant's assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. |
Matter of A.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2009 ND 104
Highlight: A district court order denying a petitioner's request for discharge from commitment as a "sexually dangerous individual" is reviewed under a modified clearly erroneous standard and is affirmed unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or the order is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
Darby v. Swenson, Inc.
2009 ND 103
Highlight: A district court has wide discretion in deciding matters relating to amending pleadings after the time for an amendment as a matter of course has passed. |
Matter of Rush
2009 ND 102
Highlight: In civil commitments of sexually dangerous individuals, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence a nexus between the individual's disorder and the likelihood that he or she will engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct. Subsequently, the district court must specifically state in its memorandum opinion the facts upon which it relied in finding that such a nexus existed. |
Matter of R. A. S. (Confidential)
2009 ND 101
Highlight: The United States Supreme Court has held substantive due process rights require an individual facing commitment must be shown to have serious difficulty controlling his behavior. This constitutional requirement may be viewed as part of the definition of a sexually dangerous individual. |
Interest of I.W. & D.A. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2009 ND 100 Highlight: Order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Barbie v. Minko Construction, Inc., et al.
2009 ND 99
Highlight: Speculation is not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment, and a scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to support a claim. |
State v. Deutscher
2009 ND 98
Highlight: The State may appeal from an order quashing an information, but there can be no appeal from a true judgment of acquittal. If a trial court's decision resolves some or all of the factual elements of the events charged, the decision is a judgment of acquittal rather than a quashing of the information. |
Moore v. State (Cross-Ref. with 20060224)
2009 ND 97 Highlight: Order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
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. |
Neuhalfen v. WSI, et al.
2009 ND 86
Highlight: To trigger civil penalties for making a false statement in connection with a claim for WSI benefits, WSI must prove: (1) there is a false claim or statement; (2) the false claim or statement is willfully made; and (3) the false claim or statement is made in connection with any claim or application for benefits. |
State v. Corman
2009 ND 85
Highlight: In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court looks only to the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to warrant the conviction. |
Luger, et al. v. Luger, et al.
2009 ND 84
Highlight: A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over activities conducted on an Indian reservation by persons who are not members of the tribe residing on that reservation when such activities do not involve the tribe's authority to regulate or control such activities. |
Disciplinary Board v. Light (Consolidated w/ 20080321-20080327)
2009 ND 83 Highlight: Lawyer disbarred and ordered to pay costs of disciplinary proceedings. |
Kovarik v. Kovarik
2009 ND 82
Highlight: A district court's property division in a divorce is not erroneous with respect to property transferred by one spouse in contemplation of divorce when the court does not include it in the mathematical worksheet but the record reflects the court considered it. |
Haugrose v. Anderson
2009 ND 81 |
State ex rel. Stenehjem v. Simple.Net, Inc.
2009 ND 80
Highlight: A federal judgment based on stipulation does not pre-empt valid state law that does not conflict with any federal law. |
Frokjer v. ND Board of Dental Examiners
2009 ND 79
Highlight: A medical professional's interest in a license to practice is a substantial, constitutionally protected property right. |
State v. Saulter
2009 ND 78
Highlight: Lay opinion testimony must be rationally based on the perceptions of the witness. |
Disciplinary Board v. Stensland
2009 ND 77
Highlight: Lawyer suspended from the practice of law for sixty days and ordered to pay costs and expenses of the proceedings for violating N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 3.3 and 5.5 and N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5 and 6.3. |
State v. Johnson
2009 ND 76
Highlight: The affirmative defense of mistake of law requires that the individual seeking to use it had made reasonable effort to determine whether his or her conduct constituted an offense. |
Matter of D.V.A. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2009 ND 75
Highlight: Absent a petition for discharge, a committed sexually dangerous individual does not have a right to a discharge hearing. |
Farmers Union Oil Company v. Smetana
2009 ND 74
Highlight: Although an order granting summary judgment is not appealable, an attempted appeal from the order granting summary will be treated as an appeal from a subsequently entered consistent judgment, if one exists. |
Sailer v. Sailer
2009 ND 73
Highlight: A premarital agreement is not enforceable if it was not executed voluntarily; however, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden to prove it was not executed voluntarily. |
Gowan v. Ward County Commission
2009 ND 72 Highlight: A local governing body's decision to deny a rezoning request will not be reversed unless the local body acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or there is not substantial evidence supporting the decision. |
Ude v. State (Consolidated w/20080304, 20080305 & 20080306)
2009 ND 71
Highlight: To avoid summary dismissal of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the post-conviction applicant must present some evidence that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and he must overcome the presumption that his counsel's performance was within the broad range of reasonableness. |
Dronen v. Dronen
2009 ND 70
Highlight: As a general rule, courts do not look favorably upon separating siblings in custody cases, although split custody is not prohibited. |
State v. Mitchell
2009 ND 69 Highlight: Criminal judgment for terrorizing summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Johnson v. Department of Transportation
2009 ND 68 Highlight: District court judgment affirming an administrative decision suspending driving privileges for three years after arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). |
State v. Tran
2009 ND 67 Highlight: Criminal judgment finding appellant guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of ecstasy is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Mund
2009 ND 66 Highlight: Conviction for delivery of alcohol to a minor is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Asset Acceptance LLC v. Grzeskowiak
2009 ND 65
Highlight: Order denying motion to vacate default judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
Clifford v. State
2009 ND 64 Highlight: Order denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
State v. Mitchell
2009 ND 63 Highlight: Sentencing order finding defendant guilty of assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Neva v. Fennell
2009 ND 62 Highlight: Order denying motion for a new trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
Grzeskowiak v. Nodak Electric Coop.
2009 ND 61 Highlight: Judgment of dismissal for failure to properly serve process is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). |
Sanderson v. Harlow
2009 ND 60 Highlight: Order dismissing plaintiff's joint custody action with prejudice is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
Ellis v. North Dakota State University
2009 ND 59
Highlight: Equitable estoppel may preclude the application of a statute of limitations by a party whose actions induce another party to not file a claim within a prescribed statutory period. |
Disciplinary Board v. Nemec (Consolidated w/ 20090078)
2009 ND 58 Highlight: Suspension of lawyer ordered. |
Newman v. State (cross-ref w/20060294)
2009 ND 57 Highlight: District court order denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Black Cloud
2009 ND 56 Highlight: Criminal judgment finding appellant guilty of terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Interest of M.W. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2009 ND 55
Highlight: A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible to meanings that are different, but rational. |
State v. Kunze
2009 ND 54 Highlight: Criminal judgment for contact by bodily fluids with a law enforcement officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Interest of B.F. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2009 ND 53 Highlight: Double jeopardy bars the State from appealing a juvenile court judge's order rejecting a judicial referee's determination of guilt. |
Bergum v. ND Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
2009 ND 52
Highlight: A claimant seeking workforce safety and insurance benefits has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant has suffered a compensable injury and is entitled to benefits. |
Langer, et al. v. Pender, et al.
2009 ND 51
Highlight: The primary objective in construing a trust instrument is to ascertain the settlor's intent. |
Fremling v. Fremling
2009 ND 50 Highlight: Divorce judgment denying spousal support summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35(1)(a)(2). |
Reciprocal Discipline of Thoms
2009 ND 49 Highlight: Suspension of lawyer ordered. |
Hoff v. Krebs, et al.
2009 ND 48
Highlight: The implied co-insured rule does not apply when the initial claim arises from an injured third party. |
State v. Bethke
2009 ND 47
Highlight: The failure to file an information does not automatically require reversal if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Interest of J.K. (Confidential)
2009 ND 46
Highlight: Findings of fact in juvenile matters will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. |
State ex rel. K.B. v. Bauer
2009 ND 45
Highlight: In calculating income to be imputed to an unemployed obligor under the child support guidelines, a court may taken into consideration the fact that the obligor's past income circumstances had changed and were not a reliable indicator of his present or future earning capacity. |
State v. Gibbs
2009 ND 44
Highlight: A party must make a timely objection to an alleged error in the district court so the court may take appropriate action, if possible, to remedy any prejudice that may have resulted from the claimed error. |
Interest of J.S.L. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2009 ND 43
Highlight: In determining whether hearsay evidence has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to qualify for the residual hearsay exception, the circumstances surrounding the statement are compared to the closest applicable hearsay exception. |
State v. Henes
2009 ND 42
Highlight: Issues not raised to the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). |
State v. Foreid
2009 ND 41
Highlight: An additional or different offense is not charged when an information is amended to fix an error in the classification of the charged offense and comply with statutory requirements. |
Disciplinary Board v. Overboe
2009 ND 40 Highlight: A final determination of lawyer misconduct by another jurisdiction conclusively establishes misconduct for a disciplinary proceeding in North Dakota and requires the imposition of identical discipline unless the lawyer demonstrates and it clearly appears: (1) the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (2) there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct in the other jurisdiction that the decision from the other jurisdiction cannot be accepted; (3) the imposition of the same discipline would result in a grave injustice; or (4) the misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in this state. |
Sturn v. Director, N.D. Dept of Transportation
2009 ND 39
Highlight: Radar is prima facie evidence of vehicle speed. The foundational requirements for conviction using radar are not the same as the requirement for reasonable suspicion. |
State v. Leingang
2009 ND 38
Highlight: Contempt is not available when sums of money may be collected through the process of execution. |
State v. Holbach (consolidated w/20080003)
2009 ND 37
Highlight: When an individual's constitutional right to travel has been restricted by a judicial order, any conduct in violation of that judicial order is not a constitutionally protected activity for purposes of the stalking statute. |
State v. Geiser
2009 ND 36 Highlight: The definition of "child" in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-22.2(1)(b) does not include unborn children; therefore, the crime of "endangerment of a child or vulnerable adult" does not apply to an unborn child. |
Verhey v. McKenzie
2009 ND 35
Highlight: When a child support obligor is unemployed or underemployed, the child support guidelines permit a court to impute income to the obligor. |
State v. Curtis
2009 ND 34
Highlight: A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses who will provide testimony that is both favorable and material to a defense. |
Bragg, et al. v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co.
2009 ND 33 Highlight: An entity taking an interest in real property subject to a lis pendens--a written notice of a pending suit involving real property--is bound by all proceedings taken after the filing of the notice of lis pendens to the same extent as if that entity were a party to the underlying action, including a settlement of the underlying action. |
Gunia v. Gunia
2009 ND 32
Highlight: A party seeking to modify a child support obligation within one year of the decision setting the obligation must show a material change in circumstances. |
Koropatnicki v. State
2009 ND 31 Highlight: Order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Steen (Consolidated w/20080244 thru 20080247)
2009 ND 30 Highlight: A district court order denying defendant's motions for credit for time spent in custody is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Delzer, et al. v. Anderson
2009 ND 29 Highlight: Civil money judgment relating to assigned divorce debt summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (6). |
State v. Isom (Consolidated w/20080311-20080314)
2009 ND 28 Highlight: The district court's order denying defendant's motion for credit for time served is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Reciprocal Discipline of Swensen
2009 ND 27 Highlight: Lawyer disbarred. |
Reciprocal Discipline of Hellerud
2009 ND 26 Highlight: Suspension of lawyer ordered. |
Interest of R.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2009 ND 25 Highlight: Mental health commitment and involuntary medication order summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b). |
Collection Specialist Int'l v. McLaughlin Const. Co. (Cons. w/20080242)
2009 ND 24 Highlight: District court judgment in favor of McLaughlin Construction Co. in a contract case is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Bruder v. WSI, et al.
2009 ND 23 Highlight: When there are conflicting expert medical opinions about the cause of a workers compensation claimant's medical condition, Workforce Safety and Insurance has the responsibility to weigh credibility and resolve conflicts in the evidence. |
Midthun v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
2009 ND 22
Highlight: A party appealing a hearing officer's decision must file reasonably specific specifications of error detailing which matters are at issue, so as to alert the agency, other parties, and the court of the particular errors claimed. |
Adoption of J.D.F. (Confidential)
2009 ND 21 Highlight: A district court must advise parents that they are entitled to representation by counsel, provided by the State if necessary, throughout any proceedings to terminate the parent-child relationship against their will. |
Kelly v. Kelly
2009 ND 20 |
Adoption of H.G.C. (confidential)
2009 ND 19
Highlight: A parent's parental rights, including the right to withhold consent to an adoption, may be terminated if the parent has abandoned the minor child. |
Ulsaker v. White
2009 ND 18
Highlight: A long-term marriage supports an equal distribution of marital property. |
Reinholdt v. ND Dept. of Human Services
2009 ND 17 Highlight: If a Medicaid applicant has a legal ability to obtain an asset, it is considered an actually available resource. In determining whether an asset is actually available, the focus is on the Medicaid applicant's actual and practical ability to obtain the asset as a matter of fact, not of legal fiction. |
Hendrickson v. Olson
2009 ND 16
Highlight: The admissibility of evidence in any adjudicative proceeding before an administrative agency is determined under the rules of evidence unless there is a specific waiver stated orally or in writing before or at the hearing. |
City of Fargo v. Salsman
2009 ND 15
Highlight: A municipality has the authority to bring a nuisance abatement action. |
Hector, et al. v. City of Fargo
2009 ND 14
Highlight: The decision of a local governing body on whether to amend the city zoning map and growth plan will be affirmed unless the local body acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably, or if there is not sufficient evidence supporting the decision. |
Myers v. State (cross-reference 20050368)
2009 ND 13 Highlight: The failure to file a pretrial suppression motion alone is not enough to meet the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel; the petitioner must show actual prejudice. |
Citibank v. Reikowski
2009 ND 12 Highlight: Any action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an application for stay has been made. |
Slorby v. Slorby
2009 ND 11
Highlight: If the language of a judgment is unambiguous and plain, neither construction nor interpretation is allowed, and the effect of the language must be based on the language's literal meaning. |
Doepke v. Doepke
2009 ND 10
Highlight: A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines when it determines a child support obligation. |
City of Fargo v. Lunday
2009 ND 9 Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29(a), a defendant in a criminal jury trial must still make a motion for judgment of acquittal to preserve the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence for appeal. |
State v. Scutchings
2009 ND 8 Highlight: A prosecutor's comment during closing arguments that the government's evidence is uncontradicted or unrebutted is improper if the only person who could have rebutted the evidence was the defendant testifying on his or her own behalf, and the defendant has chosen not to testify at the trial. |
State v. Walstad (Consolidated w/20080272 & 20080273)
2009 ND 7 Highlight: The district court's order denying defendant's motion for credit for time spent in custody is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (2). |
State v. Vick
2009 ND 6 Highlight: The district court's second amended judgment denying defendant's motion for additional credit for time spent in custody is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |