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.
5081 - 5090 of 12358 results
State v. DeGroot
2006 ND 201 Highlight: Conviction of theft of property summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
State v. Jackson (cross-ref. w/940199)
2006 ND 200 Highlight: Conviction of driving under suspension summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
Interest of K.S., et al. (Consolidated w/20050398) CONFIDENTIAL
2006 ND 199 Highlight: Order terminating parental rights summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Sandberg v. American Family Ins.
2006 ND 198
Highlight: The requirements of a statute may become part of an insurance policy. |
Stenvold v. Workforce Safety & Insurance, et al.
2006 ND 197
Highlight: An administrative agency generally may not consider evidence which has not been offered, admitted, and made a part of the official record of the administrative proceeding. |
State v. Graf (Consolidated w/20050411-20050417)
2006 ND 196
Highlight: Warrantless searches inside an individual's home are presumptively unreasonable, but searches inside an individual's home are not unreasonable if the search falls under one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. |
Industrial Commission v. Noack
2006 ND 195
Highlight: An appellant has the duty to provide a transcript sufficient to allow a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged errors. |
Ellis v. Disciplinary Board
2006 ND 194
Highlight: Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, including reinstatement proceedings, are reviewed de novo on the record. |
State v. Iverson
2006 ND 193 Highlight: A statute authorizing credit for time served in custody cannot be retroactively applied after a person has been finally convicted. |
State v. Schmidkunz
2006 ND 192
Highlight: In controlling the scope of closing argument, the district court is vested with discretion, and absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse on grounds the prosecutor exceeded the scope of permissible closing argument. Unless the error is fundamental, a defendant must demonstrate a prosecutor's comments during closing argument were improper and prejudicial. |