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.
5431 - 5440 of 12382 results
Choice Financial Group v. Schellpfeffer, et al.
2005 ND 90 Highlight: Where partial summary judgment is rendered for only part of the damages sought by the plaintiff and consideration of further damages is reserved for a later date, the judgment is neither final nor on an entire claim, and there can be no certification of the partial summary judgment as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). |
State v. Olsen (Consolidated w/20050040)
2005 ND 89 Highlight: A criminal judgment following a jury conviction for burglary and a denial of post-conviction relief are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3). |
State v. Thompson
2005 ND 88 Highlight: An appeal from an order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (7). |
Disciplinary Board v. Christensen (CONSOLIDATE W/ 20050139 & 20050140)
2005 ND 87 Highlight: Lawyer reprimanded and ordered to pay costs of disciplinary proceedings. |
State v. Keller
2005 ND 86
Highlight: The right to a lesser-included-offense instruction requires that the offense be a lesser included offense of the greater, that the evidence be such that a jury could rationally find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser, and generally, that the instruction be requested. |
Eberts, et al. v. Billings Co. Board of Commissioners
2005 ND 85 Highlight: A board of county commissioners may condemn land for a road under quick take procedures in N.D.C.C. 24-05-09 through 24-05-15. |
Cusey v. Nagel
2005 ND 84 Highlight: A person who petitions for a disorderly conduct restraining order must allege specific facts or threats. |
Sorlie v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
2005 ND 83
Highlight: The pretermination due process procedures for terminating disability benefits do not apply to a lump-sum award. |
Hanson v. Hanson
2005 ND 82
Highlight: A district court may modify a prior custody order after a two-year period following the date of entry of an order establishing custody if the court finds that a material change in circumstances has occurred and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. A party seeking to modify a custody order bears the burden of showing that a change of custody is required. |
Aker v. ND Department of Transportation
2005 ND 81 Highlight: A judgment reversing an administrative agency decision suspending driving privileges is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |