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.
4861 - 4870 of 12418 results
Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, East Central Judicial District
2008 ND 15 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo in the East Central Judicial District. |
Wold v. Wold
2008 ND 14
Highlight: Generally, in a divorce, a court's property valuations are not clearly erroneous if they are within the range of the evidence presented. |
State v. Desjarlais (Consolidated w/20070157)
2008 ND 13 Highlight: There is no obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) unless there is a clear deviation from a clearly established rule of law. |
Van Sickle, et al. v. Hallmark & Assoc., Inc., et al.
2008 ND 12
Highlight: A debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy unless the creditor received notice of the bankruptcy proceedings. |
Koble v. Koble
2008 ND 11 |
Leno v. Department of Transportation
2008 ND 10
Highlight: The Department is not required to show an Intoxilyzer machine has been recalibrated following a movement of the machine to prove an Intoxilyzer test was fairly administered. |
Interest of J.S., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2008 ND 9 |
Kourajian v. Kourajian
2008 ND 8
Highlight: A party seeking custody modification under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.6(4) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the party brings a prima facie case, by alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if uncontradicted, would support a custody modification in favor of that party. |
City of Minot v. Boger, et al. (Cross-reference w/ 20060163)
2008 ND 7
Highlight: The due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions are not violated under the void-for-vagueness doctrine if the challenged language, when measured by common understanding and practice, gives adequate warning of the conduct proscribed and marks boundaries sufficiently distinct for fair administration of the law. |
Overland v. Overland
2008 ND 6
Highlight: A district court's division of property does not need to be equal to be equitable, but any substantial disparity must be explained. |