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.
5201 - 5300 of 12418 results
Johnson v. Sprynczynatyk
2006 ND 137 Highlight: Traveling at a slower than usual speed, with no further evidence of illegal activity, does not alone create a reasonable and articulable suspicion justifying a traffic stop. |
Kenmare Education Assn. v. Kenmare Public School Dist. #28
2006 ND 136
Highlight: A school district must negotiate in good faith with the representative organization before last-offer contracts are made. |
State v. Gresz
2006 ND 135 Highlight: In the absence of physical action upon another person, the failure to include a self-defense jury instruction on a charge of disorderly conduct is not obvious error. |
State v. Blue
2006 ND 134
Highlight: Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements in criminal cases is precluded, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. |
Ulsaker v. White
2006 ND 133
Highlight: All assets regardless of source, whether separately obtained or inherited property, are to be considered part of the marital estate. |
Interest of N.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2006 ND 132 Highlight: Juvenile court order declaring child delinquent is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Jelleberg
2006 ND 131 Highlight: Conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
Interest of K.G. (Confidential)
2006 ND 130 Highlight: Order for continuing mental health treatment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Rutherford
2006 ND 129 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of burglary and assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
City of Fargo v. Curtis
2006 ND 128 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Ballensky v. Flattum-Riemers, et al.
2006 ND 127
Highlight: A defendant's demand to file a complaint is personal to the demanding defendant, and a plaintiff's failure to file the complaint after a demand does not void the service of the summons as to other defendants. |
Interest of E.G., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) (Consolidated w/20050448)
2006 ND 126
Highlight: To terminate parental rights, the petitioner must prove three elements by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the child is a deprived child, (2) the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied, and (3) that by reason thereof the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm. |
State v. Manning
2006 ND 125
Highlight: Relevant evidence is evidence having a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. |
Tarnavsky v. Tarnavsky, et al.
2006 ND 124 Highlight: A case is remanded to the district court with directions to vacate an order confirming a sheriff's sale when the appellee concedes on appeal that errors occurred in the sheriff's sale and consents to vacation of the order confirming the sale. |
Porter v. Porter
2006 ND 123 Highlight: A district court must analyze all four Stout-Hawkinson factors in determining whether a custodial parent may move out of state with a child. |
Johnson v. State
2006 ND 122
Highlight: The affirmative defense of laches is proper in post-conviction proceedings. |
University Hotel Development v. Dusterhoft Oil, Inc., et al.
2006 ND 121 Highlight: Before promissory estoppel may be invoked to enforce an agreement or to award damages, the terms of the promise must be clear, definite, and unambiguous. |
Kostelecky v. Kostelecky
2006 ND 120
Highlight: Property division and spousal support are interrelated and intertwined and often must be considered together. In making a spousal support determination, the district court must consider the relevant factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. |
Roth v. Hoffer
2006 ND 119
Highlight: A district court may correct clerical errors after an appellate court has decided an appeal if the correction is the type envisioned by N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) and the appellate court has not ruled explicitly or implicitly on the issue that is the subject of the correction. |
American Crystal Sugar Co. v. Traill Co. Board of Commissioners
2006 ND 118
Highlight: A board of county commissioners is not required to follow formal rules of judicial procedure in tax abatement proceedings. |
Haugen v. BioLife Plasma Services, et al.
2006 ND 117
Highlight: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows a fact finder to infer negligence if the plaintiff can establish three foundational elements: (1) the accident was one that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the instrumentality or agent that caused the plaintiff's injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) there was no voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. |
City of Grand Forks v. Hendon/DDRC/BP, et al.
2006 ND 116 Highlight: The amount of damages in a condemnation action will be upheld on appeal if it is within the range of the evidence presented to the trier of fact. |
Wheeler v. Schuetzle
2006 ND 115
Highlight: The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction will not be exercised to vindicate private rights, regardless of their importance. |
Gust v. State
2006 ND 114
Highlight: A defendant has the burden to show he is entitled to additional credit for time served in custody. |
State v. Frederick
2006 ND 113 Highlight: Convictions of manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and abuse or neglect of a child are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Kunze v. State (Consol. w/20050377-20050379) (Cross-ref. w/990163-990166)
2006 ND 112 Highlight: District court's summary denial of a motion for an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction relief and denial of a motion to vacate criminal judgments is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (6). |
Carpenter v. Rohrer, et al.
2006 ND 111
Highlight: An appellant must provide a transcript sufficient to allow a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged errors and assumes the consequences for the failure to file a complete transcript. |
Bank Center First, Bismarck, ND v. R.C. Transport LLC, et al.
2006 ND 110
Highlight: Filing a money judgment in a county where the judgment debtor has an interest in real property is a lien on the judgment debtor's interest in the real property. |
Landers, et al. v. Biwer, et al.
2006 ND 109
Highlight: Specific performance cannot be enforced against a party to a contract if specific performance is not just and reasonable to that party or if the party's assent was obtained by misrepresentation. |
City of Bismarck v. Mariner Construction, Inc., et al.
2006 ND 108
Highlight: The interpretation of a written contract to determine its legal effect is a question of law, and a court must initially determine if the contract is ambiguous. |
Disciplinary Board v. Chinquist
2006 ND 107
Highlight: Lawyer suspended from practice of law for six months and one day and ordered to pay costs and expenses of proceeding for violating N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a) and (b), 1.7(a), 1.8(a), and 1.15(a) and (f). |
Roth v. State
2006 ND 106 Highlight: Claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for the first time in the first post-conviction relief application is not misuse of process. |
Disciplinary Board v. Hellerud
2006 ND 105
Highlight: Charging an unreasonable fee can subject an attorney to discipline. |
Interest of C.S.
2006 ND 104
Highlight: A respondent in an involuntary commitment proceeding has a due process right to counsel. |
Interest of K.L. (Confidential)
2006 ND 103
Highlight: Mentally ill persons who require treatment are entitled to the least restrictive treatment that will meet their treatment needs. |
State v. Grager (Consolidated w/20050281-20050292)
2006 ND 102
Highlight: A prosecutor does not have the right to appeal an order dismissing a case when the proseuctor requested the dismissal. |
Lausen v. Hertz
2006 ND 101
Highlight: A court may, without an evidentiary hearing, deny a motion seeking modification of custody, unless the court finds the moving party has established a prima facie case justifying modification. |
State v. Haibeck (Cross-Ref. w/20040060)
2006 ND 100
Highlight: Unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law. |
Ziesch v. Workforce Safety & Insurance, et al.
2006 ND 99
Highlight: Workforce Safety and Insurance's practice of awarding lump sum disability benefits for a closed, limited time and simultaneously issuing a retroactive notice of intention to discontinue benefits does not violate due process if the claimant was not receiving ongoing disability benefits at the time of WSI's decision. |
State v. Pace
2006 ND 98
Highlight: A driving-under-the-influence arrestee being asked to submit to a chemical test is, upon request, entitled to a reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer before deciding whether to take the test. |
Knutson, et al. v. City of Fargo
2006 ND 97
Highlight: Under the North Dakota Constitution, inverse condemnation requires a public entity's taking or damaging an owner's property by some deliberate act, whether done intentionally, negligently, or innocently. |
Interest of J.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2006 ND 96
Highlight: In a proceeding for commitment as a sexually dangerous person, the evidence must clearly show a respondent's disorder is likely to manifest itself in a serious difficulty in controlling sexually predatory behavior. |
State v. Wheeler (Cons. w/20050258 & 20050259)
2006 ND 95
Highlight: Convictions of gross sexual imposition, encouraging the deprivation of a minor, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (3). |
State v. Ruud
2006 ND 94 Highlight: Conviction for theft of property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Clifford v. Redmann
2006 ND 93
Highlight: Order denying petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as an unappealable order. |
Kaiser v. State (Cross-reference w/20040135)
2006 ND 92 Highlight: Denial of application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
City of Minot v. Hellebust
2006 ND 91 Highlight: A criminal judgment after conviction by a jury of driving under the influence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
City of Lisbon v. Dahl
2006 ND 90 Highlight: A criminal judgment for driving under the influence of liquor or drugs is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, Southwest Judicial District
2006 ND 89 |
Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 5, Southeast Judicial District
2006 ND 88 Highlight: Southeast District judgeship retained at Ellendale. |
Choice Financial Group v. Schellpfeffer, et al. (Cross-Ref w/20040204)
2006 ND 87
Highlight: Summary judgment is appropriate only after the non-moving party has had a reasonable opportunity for discovery to develop his position. |
Steen and Berg Co. v. Berg
2006 ND 86
Highlight: A primary objective of a nonclaim statute is the expeditious and orderly processing of decedents' estates, and if claims against a decedent's estate are not timely filed, the claims are barred as a matter of law. |
Disciplinary Board v. Mertz
2006 ND 85
Highlight: An attorney may attempt to compromise an infraction by proposing payment for the individual's injuries and agreeing not to file a potential suit against the individual in exchange for the individual dismissing the complaint. |
State ex rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc.
2006 ND 84
Highlight: Preemption of state law is not favored, and the framework for analyzing a preemption claim under the Supremacy Clause begins with the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law. |
Sanderson, et al. v. Walsh Co., et al.
2006 ND 83
Highlight: A dismissal without prejudice is not appealable except where the dismissal has the practical effect of terminating the litigation in the plaintiff's forum, e.g., a statute of limitations has run or where litigation is foreclosed in the state court. |
Interest of P.F. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2006 ND 82
Highlight: A preliminary hearing must be held within seventy-two hours of the filing of a petition for commitment of a sexually dangerous individual. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that individual is sexually dangerous. |
Marchus v. Marchus
2006 ND 81 Highlight: A modification of child support should be made effective from the date of the motion to modify, absent good reason to set some other date. The district court may set a later effective date, but its reasons for doing so should be apparent or explained. |
Murphy v. State (cross-ref. w/20050428)
2006 ND 80 Highlight: Denial of an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Interest of Spicer
2006 ND 79
Highlight: When a district court fails to specifically state its findings, its decision will not be upset when valid reasons for the decision are discernable, either by deduction or inference. |
Larson v. Schuetzle
2006 ND 78
Highlight: The State Penitentiary warden has authority and control over the penitentiary and its inmates. |
State v. Genre (Cons. w/20050239,20050247& 20050248)
2006 ND 77
Highlight: Voluntary consent to search is an exception to the warrant requirement. |
Flanagan v. State (Cross-Ref. w/20030247)
2006 ND 76
Highlight: An application for post-conviction relief may be denied as res judicata if the claim is a variation of a claim that was fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding. |
Gustafson v. ND Department of Human Services
2006 ND 75
Highlight: Under the 2003 version of the statute, for Medicaid eligibility, the purchase of an annuity is considered an uncompensated assignment or transfer of assets if it is not expected to return the full principal and interest within the purchaser's life expectancy. |
State v. Davenport (cross-ref. w/2000148)
2006 ND 74 Highlight: An order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
Edin v. Disciplinary Board
2006 ND 73 Highlight: Lawyer reinstatement ordered. |
Hopfauf, et al. v. Hieb, et al.
2006 ND 72
Highlight: Summary judgment is properly granted if the information available to the trial court precluded the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, entitling the moving party to summary judgment as a matter of law. |
Bernabucci, et al. v. Huber, et al.
2006 ND 71
Highlight: If extrinsic evidence is conclusive and undisputed, the determination of the meaning of a contract is a function for the court to resolve as a matter of law. |
Thompson v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
2006 ND 69
Highlight: When reviewing the decision of an administrative agency, courts do not make independent findings of fact or substitute their judgment for that of the agency, but determine whether a reasoning mind could reasonably have determined that the factual conclusions reached were supported by the weight of the record. |
Victor v. Workforce Safety & Insurance, et al. (Consolidated w/20050400)
2006 ND 68 Highlight: Workforce Safety and Insurance has discretion in determining what rehabilitative services are reasonably necessary and a reasoning mind reasonably could have decided that a $10,000 animal hoist was not a reasonably necessary rehabilitative service for a worker employed at a dog grooming business. |
Manning v. Manning
2006 ND 67 |
Nesvig v. Nesvig (cross-ref. w/20030041)
2006 ND 66
Highlight: In deciding whether to compel testimony of an unretained expert, the court should consider: whether the expert is being called to testify about facts of the case or to give opinion testimony; the difference between testifying to a previously formed or expressed opinion and forming a new one; whether the witness is a unique expert; the likelihood a comparable witness will willingly testify; and the degree the witness is oppressed by having to continually testify. |
Rothberg v. Rothberg
2006 ND 65
Highlight: An order denying a motion to modify child support or spousal support that is intended to be the final order of the court is appealable. |
Kramer v. Kramer
2006 ND 64 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
Highlight: Probation and restitution in a felony case may be extended for only one additional period of probation, not to exceed five years. |
State v. Moran
2006 ND 62
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. |
Parizek v. State (Cons. w/20050261 & 20050262)
2006 ND 61
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. |
Brown v. State Board of Higher Education
2006 ND 60 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 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
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. |
Fischer, et al. v. Berger, et al.
2006 ND 48
Highlight: A use of land creates an easement by prescription if the use is adverse, continuous and uninterrupted, and for the 20-year period of prescription. |
Interest of F.F., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2006 ND 47 Highlight: A court may terminate parental rights on finding the child (1) is deprived and (2) has been in foster care for at least four hundred fifty of the previous six hundred sixty nights. |
Berge v. Berge
2006 ND 46
Highlight: When a trial court does not clearly state how it calculated the amount of child support, the Supreme Court will reverse and remand for an explanation even if the record contains adequate evidence for the trial court to make a precise finding. |
State v. Bergstrom
2006 ND 45
Highlight: In a civil forfeiture action, the State must show probable cause exists to bring the forfeiture action, and then the claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the property is not subject to forfeiture. |
State v. Anderson (CONSOLIDATED W/ 20050229)
2006 ND 44
Highlight: Information from an informant may provide the factual basis to establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. |
Causer v. State (cross-ref. w/20030124)
2006 ND 43 Highlight: Denial of application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (7). |
Ward County Farm Bureau, et al. v. Poolman
2006 ND 42 Highlight: A petitioner for a writ of mandamus must first demonstrate a clear legal right to performance of the particular act sought to be compelled by the writ. |
State v. Ernst
2006 ND 41
Highlight: The writ of audita querela has been abolished in North Dakota. |
Ficklin v. Ficklin (CONFIDENTIAL)
2006 ND 40
Highlight: Before a court may enter a protection order, there must be a showing of actual or imminent domestic violence. |
State v. Stewart (Consolidated w/20050080 thru 20050086)
2006 ND 39
Highlight: The Court looks at the "totality of the circumstances" on appeal, giving deference to the district court's findings, to determine whether a search warrant was supported by probable cause. |
State v. Garten
2006 ND 38 Highlight: Denials of a motion to suppress, motion to sever the counts against the defendant, and a motion for new trial are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
State v. Klein
2006 ND 37 Highlight: Conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (3). |