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.
251 - 300 of 12382 results
Roth, et al. v. Meyer, et al.
2024 ND 113
Highlight: A claim of adverse possession must meet every element. For the continuous element, a party must hold the property for 20 years. |
Kath v. Prochnow, et al.
2024 ND 112
Highlight: Where the proper remedy is an appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court generally |
Mohammed v. State
2024 ND 111
Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 3501(a)(2). |
State v. Studhorse
2024 ND 110
Highlight: A district court's discussion, impressing upon a witness that she had a duty to tell the truth, is not obvious error under N.D.R.Ev. 603. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Malloy, et al. (consol. w/ 20230162-20230176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Erickson (consol w/ 20230149, 20230163-20230176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Hoge (consol w/ 20230149, 20230162, 20230164-20230176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Twardowski (cons. w/20230149, 162, 163 & 165-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. BRH (cons. w/20230149, 162-164 & 166-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. 8N2E Properties (cons. w/20230149, 162-165 & 167-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Kuetemeyer (cons. w/20230149, 162-166 & 168-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Hoge Farm (cons. w/20230149, 162-167 & 169-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Hoge (cons. w/20230149, 162-168 & 170-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Carrels (cons. w/20230149, 162-169 & 171-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Staroba, et al. (cons. w/20230149, 162-170 & 172-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Jordheim, et al. (cons. w/20230149, 162-171 & 173-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Hayen (cons. w/20230149, 162-172 & 174-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Waloch (cons. w/20230149, 162-173 & 175-176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. Waloch, et al. (cons. w/20230149, 162-174 & 20230176)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
SCS Carbon Transport v. SPLJ (cons. w/20230149, 20230162-20230175)
2024 ND 109
Highlight: Judgment confirming right of entry for pre-condemnation examination and survey was not equivalent to a perpetual easement, because the authorized purposes all had a definite end point. |
State v. Doyle
2024 ND 108 Highlight: A witness testifies as an expert when the witness's answers are rooted exclusively in the witness's expertise or is not a product of the witness's investigation but instead reflects the witness's specialized knowledge. Under Rule 16(a)(1)(F), N.D.R.Crim.P, expert witness summaries must describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications. The State's failure to comply with Rule 16(a)(1)(F) may impede a defendant's ability to prepare the defendant's defense. |
Meuchel v. MR Properties
2024 ND 107 Highlight: The district court has discretion, either upon a motion by a party or on its own, to strike an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter in a pleading. A court may consider a motion to strike at any time. Specific performance is an equitable remedy and equitable principles must be followed in its use. Though specific performance is an equitable action, it is available to enforce agreements even though the injured party may have a legal remedy for damages, because in many cases an action for damages would not afford adequate relief. To be specifically enforceable, a contract must be complete in itself at least with respect to its essential and material terms. The district court cannot supply an important omission or complete a defective contract for the purpose of specific performance. |
State v. Scully
2024 ND 106 Highlight: A criminal judgment for conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture or deliver methamphetamine and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
State v. Reller
2024 ND 105 Highlight: We summarily affirm the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
State v. Alinder
2024 ND 104 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated reckless driving is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
State v. Camperud
2024 ND 103 Highlight: The district court should impose the least severe sanction when determining the remedy for the State discovery violation. The level of appropriate sanction depends on the severity of the disclosure violation. |
Estate of Almer
2024 ND 102
Highlight: When interpreting a will the primary objective is to determine the testator's intent. Extrinsic evidence may be considered to resolve an ambiguity. A will is ambiguous if its language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. |
In the Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Julie L. Bruggeman, a Member of the Bar of State of North Dakota
2024 ND 101 |
State v. Anderson
2024 ND 100 Highlight: A criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
Aune v. State
2024 ND 99
Highlight: A district court may dismiss an application without notice to the applicant if it does not rely on information outside the application and considers only materials contained in the application or embraced by the pleadings. |
Peltier v. State (consolidated w/20230391)
2024 ND 98 Highlight: A district court's order on petitions is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2). |
Armitage v. Armitage
2024 ND 97
Highlight: A district court's decision on primary residential responsibility is a |
State v. Rangel
2024 ND 96
Highlight: A criminal defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing |
Brown v. State
2024 ND 95
Highlight: The definition of official detention does not preclude custody while on probation. |
Jung v. State
2024 ND 94
Highlight: To succeed on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must show: (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. |
State v. Castleman
2024 ND 93 Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 14 a defendant must show more than naked assertions that prejudice may occur based on the number of offenses being charged and instead must show he suffered substantial prejudice as a result of the joinder. |
Interest of S.M.F.
2024 ND 92 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
Solberg v. Hennessy
2024 ND 91
Highlight: Adverse or erroneous rulings do not, by themselves, demonstrate bias. Rather, for recusal to be warranted, a judge must be partial or there must be some external influence that creates an appearance of impropriety. |
Rivera-Rieffel v. State
2024 ND 90 Highlight: An order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
State v. Eggl
2024 ND 89 Highlight: A criminal judgment sentencing a defendant to 80 years imprisonment with 20 years suspended and 10 years supervised probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA, et al.
2024 ND 88
Highlight: Wholesale adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is disapproved. |
State v. Williams
2024 ND 87 Highlight: A criminal judgment for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4). |
Glaum v. State
2024 ND 86
Highlight: Rule 58 of the North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rules addresses vexatious litigation. Litigation means any civil or disciplinary action or proceeding, including any appeal from an administrative agency, any review of a referee order by the district court, and any appeal to the supreme court. Rule 58 does not apply to criminal actions or documents filed in criminal actions. |
Harris v. Oasis Petroleum, et al.
2024 ND 85
Highlight: A motion to alter or amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. |
Field v. Field, et al.
2024 ND 84 Highlight: Under Rule 30(a), N.D.R.App.P., a party's references to evidence in any document on appeal must cite to items in the record. This Court does not consider documents that are not in the certified record. After an initial custody decision has been made, parenting time modifications are governed by N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2) and by standards set forth in caselaw. A parenting plan must include a provision on decision making responsibility under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-30(2)(a), and that responsibility must be allocated in the best interests of the child, N.D.C.C. § 14-09-31(2). A district court's decision on parenting time and decision making responsibility is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. |
Interest of Skorick
2024 ND 83 Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. The district court's findings are sufficient to show the individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. |
State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230383-20230385)
2024 ND 82 Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230384, & 20230385)
2024 ND 82 Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230383, & 20230385)
2024 ND 82 Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382-20230384)
2024 ND 82 Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |