Search Tips


41 - 50 of 12539 results

Interest of F.M.G. 2021 ND 65
Docket No.: 20210087
Filing Date: 4/14/2021
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court’s continuing treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of S.R. 2021 ND 64
Docket No.: 20200214
Filing Date: 4/7/2021
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court’s findings of continued deprivation and orders keeping two children in the custody of Three Rivers Human Service Zone are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Kaspari v. Kaspari 2021 ND 63
Docket No.: 20200258
Filing Date: 4/5/2021
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.

Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(1), an award of spousal support must be for “a limited period of time.” An award of spousal support “until death or remarriage” does not comply with N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(1) because it is indefinite and lacks a fixed duration.

Great Plains Royalty Corp. v. Earl Schwartz Co., et al. 2021 ND 62
Docket No.: 20200133
Filing Date: 4/5/2021
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Standing is the concept used to determine whether a party is sufficiently affected to ensure a justiciable controversy exists.

The law of the case doctrine precludes parties from relitigating issues resolved in a prior appeal or issues that would have been resolved had they been properly presented.

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, forecloses relitigation of issues that were decided in a prior action or by necessary implication must have been litigated and decided.

When the district court’s rationale is unclear, remand is appropriate.

Slander of title requires evidence that the defendant acted with malice.

Conversion and unjust enrichment are distinct causes of action.

State v. Bee 2021 ND 61
Docket No.: 20200261
Filing Date: 3/24/2021
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures. But a warrantless search is not unreasonable if the search of the home falls under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.

When no exception exists, any evidence seized is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule and must be suppressed.

State v. Glasser 2021 ND 60
Docket No.: 20200220
Filing Date: 3/24/2021
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Any attempt by the trial court to amend or modify a final judgment is void unless it is made upon grounds provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment.

Command Center v. Renewable Resources, et al. 2021 ND 59
Docket No.: 20200017
Filing Date: 3/24/2021
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.

Highlight: In an appeal from a bench trial, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of law are fully reviewable.

In a bench trial, the trial court decides credibility issues and the supreme court on appeal does not second-guess the trial court on its credibility determinations.

A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed on appeal unless it has abused its discretion.

Business records may be properly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Indemnity is an equitable remedy which permits a party to recover reimbursement from another for the discharge of a liability that, as between the two parties, should have been discharged by the other.

Somerset Court, et al. v. Burgum, et al. 2021 ND 58
Docket No.: 20200292
Filing Date: 3/24/2021
Case Type: OTHER (Civil)
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A party waives an issue by not providing supporting arguments, reasoning, or citations to relevant legal authority.

A party abandons an argument by failing to raise it in the party’s appellate brief.

Cass County Joint Water Resource District v. Aaland, et al. 2021 ND 57
Docket No.: 20200171
Filing Date: 3/24/2021
Case Type: OTHER (Civil)
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Section 32-15-06, N.D.C.C., permits entry upon the land to make examinations, surveys, and maps thereof, which is preliminary to the condemnation action itself.

Placement of survey monuments on land for as long as three years is not an innocuous entry and seriously impinges upon or impairs the rights of the landowner to the use and enjoyment of the land. A physical occupation of this duration goes beyond the minimally invasive examination and testing permitted under N.D.C.C. § 32-15-06.

Ryberg, et al. v. Landsiedel 2021 ND 56
Docket No.: 20200189
Filing Date: 3/24/2021
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A settlement agreement is a contract between parties, and thus contract law applies.

The law looks with favor upon compromise and settlement of controversies between parties, and where the settlement is fairly entered into, it should be considered as disposing of all disputed matters which were contemplated by the parties at the time of the settlement.

When a settlement is fairly made before trial, it takes on the character of a contract between the parties and is final and conclusive, and based on good consideration.

Courts will not enforce a contract which is vague, indefinite, or uncertain, nor will they make a new contract for the parties. An oral contract can be enforced only when the parties have agreed on its essential terms.

Page 5 of 1254