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.
5421 - 5430 of 12382 results
R.R. v. G.H. (CONFIDENTIAL) (Cross-ref. w/20040139 & 20040288)
2005 ND 100 Highlight: District court orders denying a motion to change venue, finding a party in contempt, and awarding $300 paid in bond as reimbursement for costs and expenses are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
Oliver-Mercer Electric Coop. v. Davis, et al. (Consol. w/20040308)(see Memo)
2005 ND 99
Highlight: When a secured creditor who fails to give proper notice seeks a deficiency judgment, the fair market value of the collateral is presumed to be equal to the debt. |
ND Human Rights Coalition, et al. v. Bertsch
2005 ND 98
Highlight: A trial court's decision to certify a class action will not be overturned on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. |
Anderson v. Director, N.D. Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 97
Highlight: An investigative stop of a vehicle requires the officer have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a motorist has violated or is violating the law. |
Negaard v. Negaard (Consol. w/20040312) (Cross-Ref. w/20010251 & 20030174)
2005 ND 96
Highlight: An order or judgment finding a person guilty of contempt is a final order or judgment for purposes of appeal. |
Koenig v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 95 Highlight: The Department does not lack jurisdiction to suspend a license merely because an officer failed to forward test results that were not printed because of a printer malfunction. |
Glasow v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, et al.
2005 ND 94 Highlight: Rule 23(l), N.D.R.Civ.P., governs the dismissal of all class actions, regardless of whether a motion to certify the class is filed. |
Smith v. Kulig
2005 ND 93
Highlight: A landowner's only duty to a trespasser is to refrain from harming the trespasser in a willful and wanton manner. |
Woods v. Ryan
2005 ND 92 Highlight: In deciding whether to change custody of a child, a court must use a two-part analysis, considering first whether there has been a material change of circumstances, and then, if the court decides there has been, deciding whether a change in custody is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. |
Bollin v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2005 ND 91
Highlight: Chemical analysis results will not be admitted into evidence if the test was not performed in accordance with methods and devices approved by the state toxicologist. |