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.
6291 - 6300 of 12358 results
|
Dvorak v. State
2001 ND 50 Highlight: An appeal from denial of post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
State v. Knudson
2001 ND 49 Highlight: The trial court's denial of a motion to suppress and its judgment of conviction for driving under suspension are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(7). |
|
Fetch v. Quam, et al. (cross ref. 940257)
2001 ND 48 Highlight: Summary judgment is appropriately granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact that an insurer acted in bad faith by intervening in a lawsuit to defend its own interests against its insured under an uninsured motorist provision in the insurance policy or by investigating and refusing to settle a claim by its insured which is fairly debatable as to liability. |
|
Lukenbill, et al. v. Fettig
2001 ND 47
Highlight: In setting a child support obligation, the district court must clearly set forth how it arrived at the amount of the obligor's income and level of support. |
|
Hall Family Living Trust v. Mutual Service Life Ins. Co.
2001 ND 46
Highlight: An application for insurance stating the policy does not take effect until delivery creates no insurance contract until the policy is delivered. |
|
Lohstreter v. Lohstreter (cross-ref. w/970130)
2001 ND 45
Highlight: When the circumstances are appropriate, rehabilitative spousal support may continue after the remarriage of the disadvantaged spouse. |
|
State v. Berger
2001 ND 44
Highlight: Absent actual prejudice, violation of the statutory right to consult with counsel before submitting to an Intoxilyzer test is properly challenged by a motion to suppress the results of the test, rather than a motion to dismiss the charge. |
|
Tibor v. Tibor (Cross-reference w/970372 & 990020)
2001 ND 43
Highlight: The presumptively correct child support guidelines are rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence establishing a noncustodial parent's reduced ability to provide support due to visitation travel expenses and a downward deviation from the guidelines is in the best interests of the children. Until the guidelines define a "reduced ability to pay," an affidavit from the noncustodial parent testifying as to net income and anticipated travel expenses is sufficient rebuttal evidence. A trial court may use its discretion to determine whether visitation travel expenses may be deducted directly from the child support payments or from the noncustodial parent's gross monthly income to calculate net income for the purpose of determining the appropriate child support obligation, as the guidelines do not provide a method for calculating the deviation. |
|
State v. Keeney
2001 ND 42 Highlight: Conviction for delivery of a controlled substance is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Kopp v. Kopp
2001 ND 41 Highlight: Rule 60(b)(vi), N.D.R.Civ.P., authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to provide relief from a judgment when the movant demonstrates it would be manifestly unjust to enforce the judgment. |