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.
461 - 470 of 12118 results
|
Interest of J.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2024 ND 57 Highlight: A juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of S.B.
2024 ND 56 Highlight: A juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
State v. Nelson
2024 ND 55 Highlight: If a defendant’s crime and revocation of probation occurred after the 2021 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6), a district court may resentence the defendant up to the maximum allowed at the time of his original sentence. |
|
State v. Thornton, et al.
2024 ND 54
Highlight: We exercise our authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously on a case-by-case basis and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. Our authority to issue a supervisory writ is discretionary. We generally will not exercise our supervisory jurisdiction where the proper remedy is an appeal. |
|
Dahms v. Legacy Plumbing
2024 ND 53
Highlight: Conduct constituting a breach of contract does not create a tort for negligence, unless the defendant’s conduct also establishes a breach of an independent duty that does not arise from the contract. |
|
Whitetail Wave v. XTO Energy, et al.
2024 ND 52 |
|
Interest of Y.R.
2024 ND 51 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Happel v. State
2024 ND 50 |
|
Adoption of R.E.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2024 ND 49 Highlight: An order denying a petition for adoption is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Driver
2024 ND 48
Highlight: The scope of an opening statement rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not reverse a conviction on the ground that the opening statement was prejudicial unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion. |