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.
5221 - 5230 of 12359 results
Beckler v. Bismarck Public School Dist.
2006 ND 58
Highlight: The party resisting summary judgment cannot merely rely on pleadings, briefs, unsupported and conclusory allegations, or speculation to defeat a summary judgment motion but must present enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff. |
Sack v. Sack
2006 ND 57
Highlight: The disadvantaged-spouse requirement for spousal support is abolished. |
Matter of G.R.H.
2006 ND 56
Highlight: Involuntary civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person is reviewed under modified clearly erroneous standard of review. |
Sisk v. Sisk
2006 ND 55
Highlight: Visitation between a non-custodial parent and child is presumed to be in that child's best interests but may be curtailed or eliminated if likely to endanger a child's emotional or physical health. |
Thompson v. Olson
2006 ND 54 Highlight: Whether injuries rise to the level of serious bodily injuries for purposes of applying the domestic violence presumption against custody is a finding of fact which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. |
State v. Smith
2006 ND 53 Highlight: Convictions of attempted kidnapping, aggravated assault, and terrorizing are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
State v. Feist
2006 ND 52 Highlight: A district court order denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
Krall v. State (Consol. w/20050212 & 20050213) (cross-ref. 20000004)
2006 ND 51 Highlight: Denial of applications for post-conviction relief and motions for default judgment are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
Arth v. Arth
2006 ND 50 Highlight: Order for dismissal of lawsuit with prejudice is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
State v. Hoverson
2006 ND 49
Highlight: The level of outrageous conduct necessary to prove a due process violation and bar prosecution is quite high and must shock the conscience of the court. |