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.
4601 - 4610 of 12428 results
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. |