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.
871 - 880 of 12446 results
State v. Moses
2022 ND 208
Docket No.: 20220101
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Anton v. Klipfel, et. al.
2022 ND 207
Docket No.: 20220202
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Unemployment/Job Service
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight: A Job Service North Dakota’s decision is affirmed when a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the agency’s factual conclusions were proved by the weight of evidence.
Anton v. Klipfel, et. al.
2022 ND 207
Docket No.: 20220202
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Unemployment/Job Service
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
State v. Peltier (consolidated w/ 20220097)
2022 ND 206
Docket No.: 20220096
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight: Criminal judgments entered after a jury verdict are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3).
Review of a restitution order is limited to whether the district court acted within the limits set by statute, which is similar to an abuse of discretion standard. In determining the restitution amount, the court shall take into account the reasonable damages sustained by the victim of the criminal offense, which damages are limited to those directly related to the criminal offense and expenses actually incurred as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal action.
State v. Peltier (consolidated w/ 20220097)
2022 ND 206
Docket No.: 20220096
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Mullin, et al. v. Pendlay
2022 ND 205
Docket No.: 20220148
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight: Common law theory of imposing a trust based upon a confidential relationship is still present in North Dakota law.
To successfully plead the defense of unclean hands/illegality the defendant must not have been a participant in the unlawful act.
When it is alleged that an attorney negligently failed to perform some act on behalf of the client, the plaintiff must allege and prove performance of the act would have benefited the client.
If a party fails to provide supporting argument for an issue listed in their brief, they are deemed to have waived that issue.
Mullin, et al. v. Pendlay
2022 ND 205
Docket No.: 20220148
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Kaspari v. Kaspari
2022 ND 204
Docket No.: 20220141
Filing Date: 11/10/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight: A district court may not order an award of spousal support that exceeds the court’s own finding of need for a recipient spouse without specifically identifying and quantifying those additional expenses.
A district court may not order an award of spousal support based upon a supporting spouse’s post-separation work schedule that increases their weekly hours by double what is typically associated with full-time employment without specific findings as to why such a measurement would be appropriate.
A district court may not order an award of spousal support based upon cash transfers and expenses paid on behalf of adult children without specific findings as to why those costs should be included in the award.
Kaspari v. Kaspari
2022 ND 204
Docket No.: 20220141
Filing Date: 11/10/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Buchholz v. Overboe
2022 ND 203
Docket No.: 20220113
Filing Date: 11/10/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight: A divorce based on irreconcilable difference applies to both parties. An argument implying the judgment does not apply to both parties is “nonsensical and frivolous.”
A divorce judgment must have remarriage language pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 14-05-02.
A court’s valuations of martial property within the range of evidence presented are not clearly erroneous.
A court’s distribution of martial property is clearly erroneous if it is made based on incorrect law, there was no evidenece to support the distribution, or after reviewing all the evidence we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.
A district court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter on motion by a party or on its own.
A district court may amend its findings under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(b).
