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.
4701 - 4710 of 12418 results
Martin v. Trinity Hospital
2008 ND 176
Highlight: A subpoena to a named person must be served by personal service. |
Ramsey County Farm Bureau, et al. v. Ramsey County, et al.
2008 ND 175
Highlight: A county must substantially comply with mandatory post-enactment statutory publication requirements for an ordinance to become effective. |
State v. Crabtree
2008 ND 174
Highlight: When reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, deference is given to the district court's findings of fact and conflicts in testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance. |
Buchholz, et al. v. Burlington Resources (consolidated w/20080027)
2008 ND 173 Highlight: When an oil and gas operating unit is created, existing contracts are to be regarded as modified or amended only to the extent necessary to conform to the applicable statutory provisions, the Industrial Commission's order creating the unit, or the unit operating agreement, and in all other respects remain in full force and effect. |
City of Fargo v. Malme, et al. (cross reference w/20070043)
2008 ND 172
Highlight: Absent statutory or contractual authority, each party to a lawsuit bears its own attorney fees. |
Rennich v. ND Department of Human Services
2008 ND 171
Highlight: Administrative agencies are authorized to promulgate rules implementing statutes which they are empowered to administer or enforce. |
State v. Ferrie (Consolidated w/20070371)
2008 ND 170 Highlight: A court may not dismiss a criminal case for failure to prosecute when there has been no notice to the state. |
State v. Krogen
2008 ND 169 Highlight: Criminal judgment for driving under suspension is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
State v. Johnson (consolidated w/20080022)
2008 ND 168 Highlight: Criminal judgments for contact by bodily fluids with a law enforcement officer and a person lawfully present in a correctional facility who is not an inmate are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Ongstad, et al. v. Piper Jaffray & Co.
2008 ND 167
Highlight: A party seeking to invoke application of federal preemption under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA") must show that (1) the action is a "covered class action" under the Act; (2) the action purports to be based upon state law; (3) the action alleges the defendant misrepresented or omitted a material fact, or used or employed a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance; and (4) the action alleges the defendant's misrepresentations, omissions, manipulations, or deceptions were made in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security. |