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.
5731 - 5740 of 12418 results
State v. Schiele
2004 ND 53 Highlight: Conviction for luring a minor by computer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
Interest of K.P. (CONFIDENTIAL) (cross-ref. w/20030175)
2004 ND 52
Highlight: The party moving for a change of venue must establish that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. |
State v. Wilson
2004 ND 51
Highlight: A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence must show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports no reasonable inference of guilt. |
State v. Pettit
2004 ND 50 Highlight: Criminal conviction for accomplice to manufacturing methamphetamine is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
Beaudoin v. South Texas Blood & Tissue Center
2004 ND 49
Highlight: Removing, preserving, and delivery of body parts involves science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons and is governed by the two-year statute of limitations for malpractice. |
State v. Bergstrom
2004 ND 48
Highlight: A search warrant is valid if it is supported by probable cause and it particularly describes the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. |
Vandall v. Trinity Hospitals, et al.
2004 ND 47
Highlight: There is no common law tort for retaliatory discharge in North Dakota because of the statute. |
Muhammed v. Welch
2004 ND 46
Highlight: Service on a decedent's widower is not service on the decedent's estate. |
Harfield, et al. v. Tate (Cross-ref. w/19980345)
2004 ND 45 Highlight: The commission of an act cannot be proved by showing the commission of similar acts by the same person at other times, or by showing the act was in conformity with the person's character or a character trait. |
State v. Lemons
2004 ND 44
Highlight: A trial court's refusal to allow a defense witness to testify by telephone is not an abuse of discretion because the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all testimony is to be taken orally in open court. |