Search Tips

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.

5281 - 5290 of 12428 results

Kramer v. Kramer 2006 ND 64
Docket No.: 20050222
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A district court should ordinarily not order a distribution of marital property that is inconsistent with the parties' contract, but a court may set aside a property settlement agreement if the agreement is executed under mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, or if the agreement is unconscionable.

State v. Stavig 2006 ND 63
Docket No.: 20050278
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Probation and restitution in a felony case may be extended for only one additional period of probation, not to exceed five years.
Ona revocation of probation appeal: (1) the Court reviews under a clearly erroneous standard whether the defendant violated his or her probation; and (2) the Court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard whether the district court's revoking the defendant's probation.

State v. Moran 2006 ND 62
Docket No.: 20050244
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Four factors must be weighted to decide whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the accused's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the accused.
The State must actively try to serve a warrant, or it risks being negligent for not diligently pursuing the accused.
When the State diligently pursues the defendant, the defendant must prove actual prejudice; when the State intentionally delays prosecution because of a bad-faith motive, prejudice is presumed; and when the State has been negligent by not diligently pursuing the defendant, the weight of the other factors and the length of the delay controls whether prejudice must be actual or may be presumed.
The State does not err in its closing argument when it does not refer to its burden of proof so long as it does not imply a lesser burden of proof.

Parizek v. State (Cons. w/20050261 & 20050262) 2006 ND 61
Docket No.: 20050260
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Before the district court may summarily dismiss an application for post-conviction relief, the State's response to the application must be sufficient to put the applicant on his proof, shifting the burden to require the applicant to produce competent evidence to support his claims prior to the evidentiary hearing.
To justify summary dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief, the district court must find the applicant's claims invalid on their face.

Brown v. State Board of Higher Education 2006 ND 60
Docket No.: 20050365
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A university student with a grievance against the university is required to exhaust the university's internal procedures, provided by the university's policies, for handling such grievances prior to bringing a claim in court.

Thomas, et al. v. Stone 2006 ND 59
Docket No.: 20050269
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An insured's authority to designate beneficiaries in a life insurance policy may be limited by an agreement or judgment.

Beckler v. Bismarck Public School Dist. 2006 ND 58
Docket No.: 20050195
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

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.
To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge that duty, and the plaintiff has suffered an injury that was proximately caused by the defendant's negligence.
A landowner owes a duty of care to lawful entrants to keep its property in a reasonably safe condition, considering all the circumstances, which include the likelihood of injury to another, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.
A proximate cause is a cause which, as a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any controlling intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which it would not have occurred.

Sack v. Sack 2006 ND 57
Docket No.: 20050167
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The disadvantaged-spouse requirement for spousal support is abolished.
Spousal support decisions are to be based on the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
A court may award items of personal property to a party if the other party agrees to the award in court.

Matter of G.R.H. 2006 ND 56
Docket No.: 20040287
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Involuntary civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person is reviewed under modified clearly erroneous standard of review.
Under statute for committing sexually dangerous person, proof of nexus between the requisite disorder and dangerousness encompasses proof that the disorder involves serious difficulty in controlling behavior and suffices to distinguish a dangerous sexual offender whose disorder subjects him to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist in a criminal case.
The executive director of the Department of Human Services may decide the least restrictive available treatment for a sexually dangerous individual, and that procedure does not violate due process or double jeopardy.

Sisk v. Sisk 2006 ND 55
Docket No.: 20050232
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Maring, Mary

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.
A trial court must award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the non-custodial parent if there has been a willful and persistent denial of visitation.

Page 529 of 1243