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.
651 - 660 of 12446 results
Johnson v. City of Jamestown
2023 ND 87
Docket No.: 20220283
Filing Date: 5/9/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Per Curiam
Anderson v. Anderson
2023 ND 86
Docket No.: 20220287
Filing Date: 5/9/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight: All property held by either party, whether held jointly or individually, is considered marital property.
A capital loss may be used as a deduction for federal income tax purposes.
A contempt order is collateral to the merits of the case and appealable by special statute.
A party challenging a district court’s imposition of sanctions bears the burden of proving the court abused its discretion in light of the information available at the time.
Anderson v. Anderson
2023 ND 86
Docket No.: 20220287
Filing Date: 5/9/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
E.R.J. v. T.L.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2023 ND 85
Docket No.: 20220199
Filing Date: 5/9/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Paternity
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight: A district court’s findings that changing a child’s name is in the best interests of a child satisfies the good cause standard under N.D.C.C. § 14-20-57(7).
Under section 14-03-20.1(2)-(3), N.D.C.C., a “person’s surname does not automatically change upon marriage,” but parties to a marriage may choose to change their name after solemnization “by entering the new surname in the space provided on the marriage license application.”
A district court may order a child’s name be changed to a hyphenated combination of the parents’ names when requested as an alternative by a parent even when a petition does not specifically request that option, provided that both parties have notice at the hearing and opportunity to respond.
E.R.J. v. T.L.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2023 ND 85
Docket No.: 20220199
Filing Date: 5/9/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Paternity
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Nodak Ins. Co. v. Farm Family Casualty Ins. Co., et al.
2023 ND 84
Docket No.: 20220114
Filing Date: 5/9/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Insurance
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan
Highlight: Interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal.
If coverage hinges on an undefined term, the plain, ordinary meaning of the term applies in interpreting the contract.
While insurance policies are regarded as adhesion contracts and ambiguities are resolved in favor of the insured, a contract will not be rewritten to impose liability on an insurer if the policy unambiguously precludes coverage.
The phrase “similar insurance” used in an automatic termination or cessation provision means similar in type and in amount.
Nodak Ins. Co. v. Farm Family Casualty Ins. Co., et al.
2023 ND 84
Docket No.: 20220114
Filing Date: 5/9/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Insurance
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 3, NWJD
2023 ND 83
Docket No.: 20230068
Filing Date: 4/26/2023
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author: Per Curiam
Highlight: Judgeship retained at Williston.
State v. Smith
2023 ND 82
Docket No.: 20220162
Filing Date: 4/26/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight: When a party asserts prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on appeal, this Court may review for obvious error.
Questioning by the State regarding relevant evidence in the case may not amount to a prosecutor stating his personal belief on a defendant’s claim of self-defense nor prosecutorial misconduct.
Questioning by the State will not warrant reversal when such questions were invited by the defense.
Questions regarding potential weaknesses of a defendant’s case does not amount to burden shifting, particularly when the jury is reminded numerous times throughout trial that the burden is on the State.
Non-public exchanges, such as brief sidebars or bench conferences, between counsel and the court on routine evidentiary issues, technical legal issues, and administrative issues are not public trial violations.
The district court does not abuse its discretion by allowing expert testimony when it found the testimony was relevant, not overly cumulative, and properly noticed.
State v. Smith
2023 ND 82
Docket No.: 20220162
Filing Date: 4/26/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
