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.
401 - 500 of 12418 results
|
Estate of Heath
2024 ND 23
Highlight: A prerequisite to obtaining an order establishing the authority of a domiciliary foreign personal representative is proof of the authority to act as the personal representative in the foreign jurisdiction, meaning an active appointment in the foreign jurisdiction. |
|
Estate of Heath
2024 ND 23 |
|
Friends of the Rail Bridge, et al. v. N.D. Dep't of Water Resources, et al.
2024 ND 22 Highlight: For a district court to acquire subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from an administrative agency decision, the appellant must satisfy the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal. By statute, a person aggrieved by the Department of Water Resources’ action or decision must request a hearing within 30 days and prior to appealing. An information-gathering public meeting is not an adjudicative proceeding hearing. |
|
Friends of the Rail Bridge, et al. v. N.D. Dep't of Water Resources, et al.
2024 ND 22 |
|
Mahad v. WSI, et al.
2024 ND 21
Highlight: The time to appeal a final administrative order begins when notice of the final order is mailed. |
|
Lyons v. State
2024 ND 19
Highlight: The requirements of the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1, must be satisfied before an applicant can obtain relief under the Act. |
|
State v. Good Bear
2024 ND 18
Highlight: In determining if an out-of-court statement is admissible, the district court must first determine if the statement qualifies as hearsay under the rules of evidence. If not hearsay, then the statement is admissible; if it is hearsay, the court must then determine if it qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule as outlined in the N.D.R.Ev. 803 and N.D.R.Ev. 804. |
|
Landis v. State
2024 ND 17
Highlight: This Court only decides those issues which are thoroughly briefed and argued, and a party waives an issue by not providing adequate supporting argument. |
|
LAWC Holdings v. Vincent Watford
2024 ND 16
Highlight: Whether a party has breached a contract is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. |
|
Pinks, et al. v. Kelsch, et al.
2024 ND 15 Highlight: A two-pronged test is used when determining whether an interlocutory order is appealable. First, the order appealed from must meet one of the statutory criteria of appealability set forth in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02. If it does, then Rule 54(b) under the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure must be complied with. An appeal will not be considered in a multi-claim or multi-party case which disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties unless the district court has first independently assessed the case and determined that a Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate. |
|
Swanson v. State
2024 ND 14 Highlight: An order denying a petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Interest of R.S.
2024 ND 13 Highlight: A district court’s order for continuing hospitalization is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of R.S.
2024 ND 13 |
|
Stancel v. Stancel, et al.
2024 ND 12 Highlight: A district court divorce judgment and order denying cross motions for contempt are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Plaisimond v. State
2024 ND 11 Highlight: A district court’s order for denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Estate of Lindberg
2024 ND 10
Highlight: Before we consider the merits of an appeal, we must first confirm we have jurisdiction. A motion filed under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) and 60(b)(6) within 28 days of the notice of entry of judgment or order tolls the time to appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3)(A)(iv) and (vi). |
|
Interest of J.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/ 20230378)
2024 ND 9 Highlight: A juvenile court errs when it relies on facts which are outside of the evidentiary record when exercising its discretion to terminate parental rights. |
|
Hoover v. NDDOT
2024 ND 8 Highlight: An administrative agency does not afford a petitioner a fair hearing when the agency receives exhibits into evidence without first providing the petitioner the opportunity to examine them. |
|
State v. Williamson
2024 ND 7 Highlight: Section 12.1-32-02(2), N.D.C.C., requires a district court include any credit for sentence reductions in the criminal judgment. |
|
State v. Williamson
2024 ND 7 |
|
State v. Salou
2024 ND 6
Highlight: Rule 28(b)(7)(B), N.D.R.App.P., requires an appellant’s brief to have a statement of the applicable standard of review and a citation to the record showing that the issue was preserved for review, or a statement of grounds for seeking review of an issue that was not preserved. A preserved evidentiary issue is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, and an unpreserved evidentiary issue is reviewed for obvious error. |
|
State v. Gietzen
2024 ND 5
Highlight: The State’s accompanying statement filed with the notice of appeal must explain the relevance of the suppressed evidence and not merely paraphrase the statutory language. But the Court may consider the appeal if the facts clearly demonstrate the relevance of the suppressed evidence. |
|
State v. Gonzalez
2024 ND 4
Highlight: The August 1, 2021 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) does not apply retroactively. |
|
Yalartai v. Miller, et al.
2024 ND 3 Highlight: An order issued without notice to the parties is not appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(7). Relief from an order made without notice must first be sought in the district court. |
|
Larson Latham Huettl v. Vetter
2024 ND 2
Highlight: An appeal from a district court judgment entered after a bench trial on a claim for unpaid legal fees and counterclaim is affirmed, and remanded for consideration of attorney’s fees for this appeal. |
|
State v. A.J.H. (consolidated w/20230242)
2024 ND 1 Highlight: A district court order transferring the matter to juvenile court is not an order quashing an information providing the State the right to appeal. |
|
Anderson v. Lamm
2023 ND 249
Highlight: The Court does not issue advisory opinions and will ordinarily dismiss a moot appeal. An appeal is moot when there is no actual controversy left to be determined because events have occurred that make it impossible for the Court to issue relief. There is an exception to the rule against advisory opinions for appeals from district court decisions that continue to have adverse collateral consequences for an appellant. For the collateral consequences exception to apply, there must be a reasonable possibility that collateral consequences will occur. This requires an examination of the specific circumstances of a case. |
|
Mead v. Hatzenbeller
2023 ND 248
Highlight: A temporary restraining order is a type of injunction that is brief in duration and meant to maintain the status quo until the district court can make a determination on the merits of a petition. After a final order has been issued, questions concerning the propriety of earlier temporary injunctive orders are moot. |
|
Koon v. State
2023 ND 247
Highlight: A district court judgment denying an application for postconviction relief is affirmed. |
|
State v. Nelson (consolidated w/20230235)
2023 ND 246
Highlight: This Court’s review of a sentence is generally confined to whether the district court acted within the statutory sentencing limits or substantially relied on an impermissible factor. |
|
State v. Gai
2023 ND 245 Highlight: A criminal judgment revoking probation and resentencing a defendant is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Heywood v. State
2023 ND 244 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Heywood v. State
2023 ND 244 |
|
Everett v. State
2023 ND 243
Highlight: An applicant for post-conviction relief has two years from when the conviction becomes final to apply for relief, unless newly discovered evidence is found. |
|
Gaede v. State
2023 ND 242 Highlight: An order denying a petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
Mathisen, et al. v. Becker-Johner
2023 ND 241 Highlight: A brief is deficient if it fails to raise a legal argument, including the authorities on which it relies. A district court order and judgment granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
Mathisen, et al. v. Becker-Johner
2023 ND 241 |
|
Williams v. Williams, et al.
2023 ND 240
Highlight: Reopening the record is an evidentiary issue subject to the abuse of discretion standard. |
|
Grengs v. Grengs, et al.
2023 ND 239
Highlight: A principal that allows an ostensible agent act with apparent authority may be bound by the agent’s actions. |
|
Interest of J.M.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2023 ND 238 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating a mother’s parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Shift Services v. Ames Savage Water Solutions
2023 ND 237
Highlight: Once a contract has been entered into, mutual assent of the contracting parties is essential for any modification of the contract. |
|
State v. Serdahl
2023 ND 236 Highlight: A criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Powell, et al. v. Statoil Oil & Gas
2023 ND 235
Highlight: The obligation to pay royalties under an oil and gas lease is a contract contained in a conveyance or instrument affecting title to real property within the meaning of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15(2). This ten-year statute of limitations applies to a claim for untimely payment of royalties under an oil and gas lease. |
|
Ebel, et al. v. Engelhart, et al.
2023 ND 234
Highlight: A district court judgment is reversed because the court misapplied the law by applying the statute of frauds when it was not specifically pled under N.D.R.Civ.P. 8. |
|
State v. Hamilton
2023 ND 233
Highlight: When a defendant pleads guilty on open and unconditional plea, the defendant waives his right to challenge the rejection of a plea agreement. |
|
Interest of Wedmore
2023 ND 232 Highlight: An appeal to determine if a person remains a sexually dangerous individual must be taken within 30 days of an entry of an order denying discharge. |
|
State v. Bearce
2023 ND 231
Highlight: A district court does not err when reducing a defendant’s sentence within the 120-day period mandated by Rule 35(b), N.D.R.Crim.P. |
|
Sargent Cty. Water Resource District v. Beck, et al.
2023 ND 230
Highlight: Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the same parties or their privies. Collateral estoppel precludes litigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the prior case, even if such issues are subsequently presented as part of a different claim. Collateral estoppel requires a final judgment on the merits. |
|
Sargent Cty. Water Resource District v. Beck, et al.
2023 ND 230 |
|
Matter of Overboe (CONFIDENTIAL)
2023 ND 229 Highlight: Lawyer transferred to Incapacity to Practice Law Status |
|
Holm v. Holm
2023 ND 228 Highlight: The petitioner for a disorderly conduct restraining order bears the burden of demonstrating how a respondent’s conduct affected the petitioner’s safety, security, or privacy. Section 12.1-31.2-01, N.D.C.C., requires the district court to make specific findings concerning the respondent’s intent. |
|
State v. Haney (consolidated w/20220367)
2023 ND 227
Highlight: To successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant must show the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permits no reasonable inference of guilt. |
|
State v. Haney (consolidated w/20220367)
2023 ND 227 |
|
Kisi v. State
2023 ND 226
Highlight: To be convicted of accomplice to attempted murder, the accused must have intended to aid in killing. Accomplice to attempted “knowing” murder under N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-03-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(a) is a non-cognizable offense. |
|
Pagel, et al. v. Weikum
2023 ND 224
Highlight: A district court order and judgment are reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of an order compelling arbitration. |
|
State v. Curtis
2023 ND 223
Highlight: The standard of review for a criminal trial before the district court without a jury is the same as a trial with a jury. A criminal defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. |
|
State v. Geiger
2023 ND 222 Highlight: A defendant fails to preserve an issue relating to constitutionally protected activities for appeal when they failed to properly raise a constitutionally protected activity defense to the district court through a motion in limine and instead made only a N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion at trial without providing any legal basis for the claim. |
|
State v. Richter
2023 ND 221 Highlight: Displaying a fictitious operator’s license is a punishable offense under N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40. |
|
State v. Steele
2023 ND 220
Highlight: A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a closed, rented room. |
|
Tracey v. Tracey
2023 ND 219
Highlight: A district court’s finding of domestic violence may be based on actual harm, or the infliction of fear of imminent harm. |
|
Matter of Didier
2023 ND 218 Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine whether an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. The district court’s findings, showing not just a lack of progress, but a lack of participation, are sufficient to show the individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. |
|
State v. Nelson
2023 ND 217
Highlight: An issue will not be addressed on appeal when an appellant fails to raise it in the district court or brief it under the obvious error standard of review. |
|
Olson Family Limited Partnership v. Velva Parks
2023 ND 216 Highlight: A movant under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) has the burden of establishing sufficient grounds for disturbing the finality of the judgment. A disregard of service of process does not constitute mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Bare assertions without credible facts or specific legal grounds do not give rise to an allegation of a meritorious defense. |
|
Benter v. State
2023 ND 215 Highlight: Order denying a post-conviction relief application is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
Bravera Bank v. Craft, et al.
2023 ND 214
Highlight: When a district court’s order granting summary judgment is entered on a fully submitted motion without any request for oral argument, and the order fully resolves the pending claims, it may not be necessary for the court to specifically address the remaining motions. |
|
State v. Sparkman
2023 ND 212 |
|
McGinnis v. State
2023 ND 211 Highlight: A district court’s order denying postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Anderson
2023 ND 210
Highlight: When the intent element of terrorizing is met based on reckless disregard of the risk, awareness of the risk is not required if the absence is due to self-induced intoxication. |
|
State v. Morales
2023 ND 209 Highlight: North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d) governs the withdrawal of a guilty plea. To withdraw a guilty plea after the court has accepted the plea but before sentencing, a defendant must show a fair and just reason for the withdrawal. |
|
State v. Yalartai
2023 ND 208
Highlight: A defendant moving to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing bears the burden of establishing a fair and just reason exists. |
|
Kaspari v. Kaspari
2023 ND 207
Highlight: This Court only has jurisdiction to review judgments which are timely appealed. If we conclude the attempted appeal fails for lack of jurisdiction, we have the duty to dismiss the appeal sua sponte. |
|
State v. Kovalevich
2023 ND 206
Highlight: When a defendant has previously filed a post-conviction relief application, a subsequent motion filed under the Rules of Criminal Procedure will be treated as an application for post-conviction relief when the motion seeks to evade the boundaries of post-conviction proceedings. |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 2, NECJD
2023 ND 205 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Grand Forks. |
|
Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Hill
2023 ND 204 Highlight: Lawyer reprimanded. |
|
Interest of A.I. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2023 ND 203 Highlight: To comply with the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-21(1), the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that alternative treatment is not adequate or hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative. However, we cannot order a less restrictive alternative even if it would be sufficient if evidence shows there is no such program currently available. |
|
State v. Gonzales
2023 ND 202 Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08, a district court may enter restitution for damages or expenses sustained by a victim that are immediate, intimate, causally connected and directly related to the criminal offense the defendant pleaded guilty or was found guilty. |
|
State v. Ortiz
2023 ND 201 Highlight: A district court’s judgment sentencing a defendant to 55 years of incarceration is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Padilla v. Klimpel, et al.
2023 ND 200 |
|
Interest of E.E.J.-C. (Confidential)
2023 ND 199 Highlight: A juvenile court order denying petition for guardianship of a child is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Montenegro
2023 ND 198 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury conviction of harassment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
|
Severance v. Howe
2023 ND 197
Highlight: The tort of battery exists at common law. A person is civilly liable for offensive-contact battery if he or she (1) acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (2) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. |
|
State v. Whitetail
2023 ND 196 Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29(a), the district court must enter judgment of acquittal upon a defendant’s motion if the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction. When the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is challenged on appeal, the record is reviewed to determine if there is competent evidence allowing the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction. The defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. |
|
Hillestad v. Small
2023 ND 195
Highlight: There is no presumption in North Dakota law for or against equal residential responsibility. |
|
Interest of C.K.
2023 ND 194 Highlight: Order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of C.K.
2023 ND 194 |
|
State v. Harris
2023 ND 193 Highlight: The district court order denying a defendant’s motion to suppress is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
State v. Hatzenbuehler
2023 ND 192 Highlight: The sentencing factors set forth in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04 apply in revocation proceedings. Although entitled to consideration, the sentencing factors do not control the district court’s discretion, are not an exclusive list of all a court may consider, and need not be explicitly referenced in fixing a criminal sentence. |
|
Albertson v. Albertson
2023 ND 191
Highlight: A district court must specially state facts when granting a disorderly conduct restraining order, which allow a reviewing court to understand the basis of the decision. |
|
Kirkpatrick v. NDDOT
2023 ND 190
Highlight: The North Dakota Department of Transportation has authority to conduct proceedings to suspend an operator’s license if law enforcement has provided it with information essential to showing suspension may be warranted under the law. |
|
Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Roach
2023 ND 189 Highlight: Lawyer reprimaned and placed on probation. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Baird
2023 ND 188 Highlight: Lawyer disbarred. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Pilch
2023 ND 187 Highlight: Lawyer disbarred. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Pilch (consolidated w/ 20230266)
2023 ND 186 Highlight: Lawyer disbarred. |
|
Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D. (con't)
2023 ND 185
Highlight: The supreme court invokes its original jurisdiction only in cases publici juris and those affecting the sovereignty of the state, its franchises and prerogatives, or the liberties of its people. The supreme court has exercised original jurisdiction in cases where the separation of coequal branches of government and their respective authority have been challenged. |
|
Interest of P.R.-K. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/20230282)
2023 ND 184 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Jones v. Rath
2023 ND 183
Highlight: Only an aggrieved party may appeal from an order or judgment. |
|
Interest of K.J.
2023 ND 182 Highlight: A district court judgment terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Interest of K.J.
2023 ND 182 |
|
Isac v. State
2023 ND 181
Highlight: When a post-conviction relief applicant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must satisfy a two-prong test by showing (1) his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the applicant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Under the second prong, the district court is required to determine what the applicant would have done had he received competent advice—not what he would have done with the benefit of hindsight. |
|
State v. Johnson
2023 ND 180 Highlight: Terrorizing circumstances are threats of violence or dangerous acts made with an intent to induce fear. No precise words are necessary to convey a threat, and may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion. A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken, and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited. |