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.
4631 - 4640 of 12359 results
Schmidt v. Job Service, et al.
2008 ND 188
Highlight: For purposes of unemployment benefits, misconduct is conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests and is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of an employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to an employer. |
Ebach v. Ebach
2008 ND 187
Highlight: A party seeking to modify a spousal support obligation must prove there has been a material change in circumstances since the time of the initial decree or, if the initial support award has been modified, a change since the subsequent modification. |
State v. Wetzel
2008 ND 186
Highlight: Words of a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. |
Matter of R.A.S. (Confidential)
2008 ND 185
Highlight: A court must make sufficient factual findings to provide the appellate court with the basis for the court's decision. |
Public Service Commission v. Minnesota Grain
2008 ND 184
Highlight: On legal questions, such as interpretation of a statute, an agency's decision is fully reviewable on appeal. |
Brown v. Brodell, et al.
2008 ND 183
Highlight: Findings of fact in cases involving the doctrine of acquiescence are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. |
ND State Electrical Board v. Boren
2008 ND 182
Highlight: The right of appeal is governed solely by statute in this state, and if there is no statutory basis to hear an appeal, the appeal must be dismissed. |
House v. Royer, et al.
2008 ND 181 Highlight: Judgment of eviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
Bolinske v. Jaeger, et al.
2008 ND 180
Highlight: A writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the performance of an act which the law specifically requires a state official to perform. |
Tarnavsky v. Tarnavsky, et al.
2008 ND 179 Highlight: Orders denying motions to "Quash Garnishment Summons," to "Expunge Order Denying Motion to Quash Garnishment Summons," to "Deny Order Confirming Sale," to amend findings under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(b), for "Extra Ordinary Relief," and for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (2), and (4). |