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.
7101 - 7200 of 12358 results
|
Symington v. Walle Mutual Ins. Co., et al.
1997 ND 93 |
|
Toth v. Disciplinary Board
1997 ND 75 |
|
Moch v. Moch, et al. (CONSOLIDATED W/960179)
1997 ND 69 |
|
State v. Garcia
1997 ND 60 |
|
Estate of Zimmerman
1997 ND 58 |
|
City of Williston v. Hegstad
1997 ND 56 |
|
Lovin v. Lovin
1997 ND 55 |
|
Medcenter One v. ND State Board of Pharmacy
1997 ND 54 |
|
Loll v. Loll, et al.
1997 ND 51 |
|
Traynor, et al. v. Leclerc, et al.
1997 ND 47 |
|
ND Workers Compensation Bureau v. Leclerc
1997 ND 47 |
|
Filler et al. v. Bragg et al.
1997 ND 24 |
|
Bies, f/k/a Obregon v. Obregon
1997 ND 18 |
|
State v. Foster (Consolidated w/960176)
1997 ND 8 |
|
State v. Carlson
1997 ND 7 |
|
Anderson v. A.P.I. Company, et al.
1997 ND 6 |
|
Tormaschy, et al. v. Tormaschy, et al.
1997 ND 2 |
|
State v. Williams
1 7.N.W3 d820 |
|
State v. Rolland
1 1.N.W3 d761 Highlight: Whether a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial is a question of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. When a court has found a defendant facing felony charges to be unfit to proceed, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-04-08 contemplates attempted rehabilitation. |
|
Anderson v. Foss, et al.
1 0.N.W3 d570
Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion when setting the commencement date for the new child support obligation one year from the date of the motion to modify. |
|
McKenzie Electric Coop., Inc. v. El-Dweek, et al.
1 5.N.W3 d12 |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
003 N.W.3d 122 |
|
Northstar Center v. Lukenbill Family Partnership, et al.
1 4.N.W3 d45
Highlight: Summary judgment should not constitute mini-trials of factual issues and is not appropriate when the court must draw inferences or make findings on disputed facts. |
|
Morales v. Weatherford U.S., et al.
6.N.W3 d657 Highlight: Recovery under a theory of negligence requires a plaintiff to show the defendant owed a duty of care. Whether a duty exists is a legal question to be decided on the facts. Under premises liability law, landowners owe a general duty to lawful entrants to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances. A landowner's duty to protect entrants upon the land or warn of dangerous conditions is limited when the dangerous condition is known or obvious to the entrant. Roadways present an open and obvious danger to pedestrians of being struck by vehicular traffic. A landowner may have a duty to protect against open and obvious dangers when there is reason to expect that an entrant's attention may be distracted. The distraction exception is not available when the plaintiff is the source of inattention. |
|
Interest of H.J.J.N.
9.N.W3 d656 Highlight: An amended judgment terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Brown v. State
6.N.W3 d823
Highlight: The definition of official detention does not preclude custody while on probation. |
|
Peltier v. State (consolidated w/20230392)
Highlight: A district court's order on petitions is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2). |
|
Vacancy in Judgeship No. 8, ECJD
Highlight: Vacancy retained at Fargo |
|
Interest of J.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/ 20230378)
002 N.W.3d 228 Highlight: A juvenile court errs when it relies on facts which are outside of the evidentiary record when exercising its discretion to terminate parental rights. |
|
Dimmler v. Dimmler, et al.
Highlight: Complete valuation of a remainder interest includes consideration of the debt secured by a mortgage on the real estate. |
|
Albertson v. Albertson
996 N.W.2d 662
Highlight: A district court must specially state facts when granting a disorderly conduct restraining order, which allow a reviewing court to understand the basis of the decision. |
|
State v. Brame
993 N.W.2d 338
Highlight: District courts must substantially comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 to ensure a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enters a guilty plea. |
|
Legacie-Lowe v. Lowe
990 N.W.2d 592 |
|
Goetz v. Goetz, et al.
988 N.W.2d 553 |
|
Martinez v. State
|
|
Queen v. Martel, et al.
980 N.W.2d 914 |
|
Norberg v. Norberg, et al.
977 N.W.2d 711 |
|
Interest of A.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)
975 N.W.2d 567 |
|
Matter of Rose Henderson Peterson Mineral Trust
974 N.W.2d 372 |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Baird (consolidated w/ 20210329-20210330)
|
|
Interest of K.B. (CONFIDENTIAL) (CONSOLIDATED W/20210110)
961 N.W.2d 293 |
|
Ring v. NDDHS
950 N.W.2d 142 Highlight: When ruling on a motion for substitution upon a party’s death, the district court must determine whether the case was extinguished by the death, and if not, whether the party seeking substitution is the proper successor. |
|
Lavallie v. Jay, et al.
945 N.W.2d 288
Highlight: Issues related to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and cannot be waived. |
|
Atkins v. State
952 N.W.2d 239 Highlight: Court-appointed appellate counsel is not permitted to file an Anders brief in post-conviction relief proceedings. |
|
Cass County Joint Water Resource District v. Aaland, et al.
948 N.W.2d 829
Highlight: Under Rule 8, N.D.R.App.P., the Court has the authority to grant a stay pending appeal. |
|
Matter of Hehn
949 N.W.2d 848 Highlight: Civil commitment decisions require detailed findings, including credibility determinations and references to evidence the court relied on in making its decision. Conclusory, general findings do not comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a). |
|
Holter v. City of Mandan
946 N.W.2d 524
Highlight: This Court exercises a limited review of a challenge to a municipality’s decision to specially assess property. |
|
Carlson v. Carlson
938 N.W.2d 413
Highlight: Section 14-09-06.2(1)(j), N.D.C.C., creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence if certain criteria is met. |
|
Caster v. State
931 N.W.2d 223
Highlight: District court order summarily denying application for post-conviction relief remanded with instructions for further proceedings. |
|
Interest of G.L.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
936 N.W.2d 539 Highlight: The district court must state the specific factual findings used in determining an individual is likely to reoffend and has serious difficulty controlling personal behavior and errs as a matter of law if the findings are insufficient or do not support the legal conclusion. |
|
Thomas v. Thomas
936 N.W.2d 109 |
|
Interest of T.A.G. (CONFIDENTIAL)
926 N.W.2d 702 |
|
Matter of Kulink
920 N.W.2d 446 Highlight: A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) |
|
In the Matter of Finstad (CONFIDENTIAL)
874 N.W.2d 910 Highlight: Transferred to incapacity to practice law status. |
|
Interest of K.S.D. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated with 20170273)
904 N.W.2d 479 Highlight: A juvenile court's decision to terminate parental rights in an ICWA case must be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including qualified expert testimony, on whether the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. |
|
Interest of P.T.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)(cons. w/ 20170069 - 20170072)
903 N.W.2d 83 Highlight: When the juvenile court makes insufficient findings of fact, this Court may remand with instructions requiring the juvenile court to make additional findings of fact. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Varriano
872 N.W.2d 338 Highlight: Lawyer reinstatement ordered. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Foster (Consolidated w/ 20160404-20160434)
894 N.W.2d 378 Highlight: Lawyer disbarred. |
|
Petition to Permit Temporary Provision of Legal Services
920 N.W.2d 908 Highlight: Order on petition for temporary lawyer practice. |
|
O'Hara v. Schneider
890 N.W.2d 831
Highlight: Where the initial order establishing primary residential responsibility or parenting time included consideration of a pattern of domestic violence, a new domestic violence act by the same parent satisfies the "material change" prong as a matter of law. |
|
Interest of Nelson
889 N.W.2d 879
Highlight: For civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual, substantive due process requires proof that the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. |
|
Curtiss v. Curtiss
886 N.W.2d 565
Highlight: The district court may conduct the best interest analysis for each individual child before ordering modification of parenting time. |
|
Wojahn v. Levi
861 N.W.2d 173 Highlight: A 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). |
|
Beylund v. Levi
859 N.W.2d 403 Highlight: The implied consent laws do not violate the Fourth Amendment, under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. |
|
State v. Timm
881 N.W.2d 256 Highlight: DUI conviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Mann
876 N.W.2d 710
Highlight: North Dakota's criminal refusal statute is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment and North Dakota Constitution article I, section 8. |
|
State v. Kordonowy
867 N.W.2d 690
Highlight: The implied consent statute criminalizing refusal to consent to chemical testing is not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment or N.D. Constitution article I, section 8, and it is not unconstitutionally vague. |
|
State v. Baxter
863 N.W.2d 208 |
|
State v. Harns
861 N.W.2d 173 Highlight: Driving under the influence conviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). |
|
State v. Washburn
861 N.W.2d 173 Highlight: An order dismissing a criminal prosecution for refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b). |
|
State v. Beylund
861 N.W.2d 172 Highlight: Conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
State v. Birchfield
858 N.W.2d 302 Highlight: The implied consent statute criminalizing refusal to consent to a chemical test is not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment or North Dakota Constitution. art. I, sec. 8. |
|
State v. Williams
873 N.W.2d 13 Highlight: The district court has discretion in deciding whether to grant a request for a transcript, and the court abuses its discretion by refusing the request if a particularized need, necessity, or justification for its preparation and use is shown. |
|
Interest of J.A.H. (Consolidated w/20140146)
855 N.W.2d 394 Highlight: When a juvenile court provides insufficient findings to review, jurisdiction may be retained under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3) and the case remanded with instructions that the juvenile court make expedited findings of fact. |
|
Nemec v. Disciplinary Board
799 N.W.2d 370 Highlight: Lawyer reinstatement ordered. |
|
State v. Juntunen
845 N.W.2d 325 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. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Howe
842 N.W.2d 646 Highlight: Interim suspension vacated. |
|
Phillips v. State
841 N.W.2d 731
Highlight: A separate appeal from an order denying the transcript of a post-conviction relief hearing is unnecessary when an appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief is already pending. |
|
Judicial Redistricting (consol. w/ 20130221)
833 N.W.2d 543 Highlight: Counties moved from South Central to Southeast Judicial District and Northwest Judicial District divided into two districts, effective January 1, 2014. |
|
Interest of S.R.B. (Confidential)
830 N.W.2d 565
Highlight: In an expedited appeal taken from an order for hospitalization and treatment, a trial court must make findings of fact specially under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) as to whether the respondent is a person requiring treatment and hospitalization is the least restrictive treatment. |
|
Palmer v. State (consol.w/20110346-20110348)(cross-ref.w/20010123-20010126)
816 N.W.2d 807 Highlight: A decision cannot be properly reviewed on appeal if the district court does not provide an adequate explanation of its rationale for its decision. |
|
State v. Gress
803 N.W.2d 607 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. |
|
Estate of Fisk
780 N.W.2d 697
Highlight: The review of fees paid or taken by a personal representative is left to the sound discretion of the district court. |
|
Miller v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al.
684 N.W.2d 641
Highlight: Ex parte communications are those that are without notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Vela
699 N.W.2d 839 Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Wilkes
673 N.W.2d 614 Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered. |
|
Howes v. Kelly Services, Inc.
649 N.W.2d 218
Highlight: In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must accept the truth of the evidence presented by the non-moving party and the truth of all reasonable inferences from that evidence which supports the verdict. |
|
Petition to Change Resident Chambers from Watford City to Minot
643 N.W.2d 1 Highlight: Judgeship transferred from Watford City to Minot. |
|
Mau, et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
610 N.W.2d 761 |
|
Interest of J.S. (CONFIDENTIAL-M.H.)
621 N.W.2d 582
Highlight: Expedited appeals under the mental health law are limited to the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the lower court. Because of this limited review, detailed findings are necessary. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Keller
613 N.W.2d 510 Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered. |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Bard
430 N.W.2d 062 |
|
State v. Hanson
558 N.W.2d 611 |
|
Scott v. ND Dept. of Transportation
557 N.W.2d 385 |
|
Goodleft (Myrtle) v. Gullickson (Philip)
556 N.W.2d 303 |
|
State v. Asbridge
555 N.W.2d 571 |
|
American Insurance Co. v. Midwest Motor Express
554 N.W.2d 182 |
|
Diocese of Bismarck Trust, et al. v. Ramada Inc., et al. (Con. w/950380)
553 N.W.2d 760 |
|
Bangen, et al. v. Bartelson, et al.
553 N.W.2d 754 |
|
Hendrickson v. Hendrickson
553 N.W.2d 215 |