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.
3251 - 3300 of 12358 results
|
Devine v. Hennessee
2014 ND 122
Highlight: To properly determine an obligor's child support obligation, income must be sufficiently documented through the use of tax returns, current wage statements, and other information to fully apprise the court of all gross income. |
|
Keltner v. Levi
2014 ND 121 Highlight: District court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending driving privileges is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Hinojosa v. State
2014 ND 120 Highlight: Appeal from denial of petition for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
McCoy v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2014 ND 119
Highlight: A law enforcement officer's administration of a breath test to determine alcohol consumption is a search. |
|
Interest of J.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)(cross-ref. w/20050383, 20100398, 20120253)
2014 ND 118 Highlight: Order denying request for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Winarske v. State
2014 ND 117 Highlight: Order denying application for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Frith v. WSI, et al.
2014 ND 116 Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's order, which affirmed WSI's order denying benefits to a claimant, is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). |
|
Medalen v. Medalen
2014 ND 114 Highlight: An amended judgment finding a party in contempt of court and ordering her to pay costs and expenses is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
State v. Thomas
2014 ND 113 Highlight: Criminal judgment entered on a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of arson and endangering by fire or explosion is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
IRET Properties v. Tano, et al.
2014 ND 112 Highlight: Order denying motion to vacate or set aside default judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
|
Francis v. Francis
2014 ND 111 Highlight: A domestic violence advocate is limited to participating in proceedings only to the extent provided for in N.D. Supreme Court Administrative Rule 34, section 5. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Lawler (Consol. w/ 20140054-20140062
2014 ND 110 Highlight: Lawyer disbarred. |
|
State v. Brown
2014 ND 108 Highlight: Convictions for delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Schlieve v. Schlieve
2014 ND 107
Highlight: A court's award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous or it is not sufficiently specific to show the factual basis for the decision. |
|
Schroeder v. Schroeder
2014 ND 106 Highlight: An evidentiary hearing for modification of primary residential responsibility is appropriate only if a prima facie case is established for both a material change in circumstances and modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. |
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Gruebele, et al.
2014 ND 105 Highlight: Negligence imputed to a parent after signing his or her minor child's driver's license application sponsorship form does not automatically create coverage under the signing parent's insurance contract. |
|
State v. Roe
2014 ND 104
Highlight: Generally, parties or their counsel may stipulate as to evidentiary matters such as the admission, exclusion or withdrawal of evidence, but stipulations that are clearly against public policy will not be validated. |
|
Lehman v. State
2014 ND 103
Highlight: Generally, an application for post-conviction relief must be filed within two years of the date the conviction becomes final. |
|
Datz v. Dosch (cross-reference w/ 20120167 & 20120435)
2014 ND 102
Highlight: The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction until the mandate is issued. |
|
State v. Kalmio
2014 ND 101
Highlight: Standing objections must be sufficiently definite to preserve the issues for judicial review. |
|
State v. Gates
2014 ND 99 Highlight: Criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Voisine v. State
2014 ND 98 Highlight: Appeal from denial of petition for postconviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
State ex rel. Storbakken v. Scott's Electric
2014 ND 97
Highlight: Arguments not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. |
|
State v. Simmons
2014 ND 96 Highlight: Order revoking probation summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Kuruc (consolidated w/ 20130337)
2014 ND 95
Highlight: The independent-source doctrine allows the introduction of evidence that was initially discovered during, or as a result of an unlawful search, but that was later obtained independently from lawful activities that have not been tainted by the initial illegality. |
|
Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC, et al. v. VEI Global, Inc.
2014 ND 94
Highlight: Certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) should rarely be granted and is reserved for cases involving unusual circumstances in which failure to allow an immediate appeal would create a demonstrated prejudice or hardship. |
|
Frith v. WSI, et al.
2014 ND 93 Highlight: A district court does not consider additional evidence on an appeal from an administrative agency decision and may only remand to the agency for the agency to consider the evidence. |
|
Kost v. Kraft (cross-reference w/ 20100159)
2014 ND 92 Highlight: There is no right to a jury trial in an equitable proceeding absent express constitutional or statutory authorization. |
|
State v. Scheett
2014 ND 91 Highlight: Officer safety is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. |
|
Norberg v. Norberg
2014 ND 90
Highlight: A vested child support obligation cannot be retroactively modified, and a court modifies a child support order when it forgives past-due child support obligations. |
|
Interest of Thill
2014 ND 89
Highlight: To deny a petition for discharge from treatment as a sexually dangerous individual, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual and has serious difficulty controlling his or her behavior. |
|
In re S.B., et al.
2014 ND 87
Highlight: When a parent decides to restrict visitation with a grandparent, that decision is presumed to be in the child's best interests. |
|
State v. Juntunen
2014 ND 86 Highlight: A decision cannot be properly reviewed on appeal if the district court does not provide an adequate explanation of the basis for its decision. |
|
Gasic v. Bosworth, et al.
2014 ND 85
Highlight: The right to appeal is jurisdictional, and the appealability of a judgment may be considered even when neither party has questioned appealability. |
|
Murphy v. State
2014 ND 84 Highlight: An application for postconviction relief, with a few exceptions, must be filed within two years of the date the conviction becomes final. |
|
Kulbacki v. Michael
2014 ND 83
Highlight: A grandparent's proceeding for visitation must provide notice of the grandparent's request for visitation and an opportunity to respond. |
|
Matter of G.K.G. (Confidential)
2014 ND 82
Highlight: For proceedings brought under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20 for termination of parental rights, a district court is the same as a juvenile court for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction. |
|
WSI v. Larry's On Site Welding, et al.
2014 ND 81
Highlight: Whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee is a mixed question of fact and law. |
|
Riemers v. Hill, et al.
2014 ND 80
Highlight: Unless certified as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), a judgment which leaves a counterclaim undecided is not final or appealable. |
|
Whedbee v. WSI, et al.
2014 ND 79
Highlight: A managed care program for an employee with a compensable injury should effect the best medical solution for the injured employee in a cost-effective manner. |
|
Palmer v. State
2014 ND 78 Highlight: District court order summarily dismissing application for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.Civ.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (6). |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 2, SEJD
2014 ND 77 Highlight: Judgeship retained at Valley City. |
|
Heidt v. Heidt
2014 ND 76 Highlight: Amended divorce judgment denying spousal support summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
State v. Thrasher
2014 ND 75 Highlight: Conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Knorr, et al. v. Norberg, et al.
2014 ND 74
Highlight: A long-term lease with an option to purchase real property ordinarily requires a signed written agreement. |
|
Matter of D.J.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2014 ND 73 Highlight: Order terminating parental rights and granting petition for adoption summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
Finstad, et al. v. Gord, et al.
2014 ND 72
Highlight: Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of an unambiguous quitclaim deed which has been delivered and recorded. |
|
Stenehjem, ex rel. v. National Audubon Society, Inc.
2014 ND 71
Highlight: Laches, as an affirmative defense, may in limited circumstances be applied against the government. Whether laches applies against the government is determined on a case-by-case basis with a careful weighing of the inequities that would result if the doctrine is not applied versus the public interest at stake and the resulting harm to the public interest if laches is applied. |
|
Lind v. Lind
2014 ND 70
Highlight: The party seeking modification of spousal support bears the burden of proving there has been a material change in the financial circumstances warranting a change in the amount of support. |
|
Law v. Whittet, et al.
2014 ND 69
Highlight: Although not required to make a separate finding on each best interest factor or to address each minute detail presented in the evidence when determining primary residential responsibility, the district court may not wholly ignore and fail to acknowledge or explain significant evidence clearly favoring one party. |