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.
4351 - 4400 of 12418 results
|
Delvo v. State
2010 ND 78 Highlight: Summary disposition of a post-conviction relief application is appropriate if the applicant, after being put on notice the State was putting him to his or her proof, fails to supplement the application with competent admissible evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact. |
|
Tarnavsky v. Rankin
2010 ND 77 Highlight: Order denying motion for relief from judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1),(4), and (7), and double costs, including reasonable attorney fees in the nominal amount of $500, are awarded to the appellee for defending a frivolous appeal. |
|
Riemers v. Eslinger, et al.
2010 ND 76 Highlight: Under Article I, section 13 of the Constitution of North Dakota, a person has the right to a jury trial for the alleged violation of a municipal ordinance when the ordinance authorizes a fine of twenty or more dollars. |
|
State v. Koenig
2010 ND 75 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding the defendant guilty of allowing livestock to run at large is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (3), and (4). |
|
Skarsgard v. State (consolidated w/20090334-20090336)
2010 ND 74 Highlight: Order denying applications for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Wery v. State
2010 ND 73 Highlight: Order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
State v. Jackson
2010 ND 72 Highlight: A criminal judgment is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3). |
|
State v. Tibor
2010 ND 71 Highlight: A trial court order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
Tarnavsky v. Tschider
2010 ND 70 Highlight: Summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6). |
|
Schmidt, et al. v. Gateway Community Fellowship, et al.
2010 ND 69 Highlight: To assess recreational use immunity in cases where recreational purposes are mixed with nonrecreational purposes, the proper inquiry requires analysis of the totality of the circumstances and all relevant social and economic aspects of the activity, including the extrinsic nature of the activity, the type of service or commodity offered to the public, and the activity's purpose and consequence. |
|
Davidson v. State
2010 ND 68
Highlight: When a settlement agreement is merged into a judgment, the agreement is interpreted and enforced as a final judgment and not as a separate contract. |
|
Davis v. Davis
2010 ND 67
Highlight: Administrative rules are derivatives of statutes and are construed using well-established principles of statutory construction. |
|
State v. Loh (CONSOLIDATED W/20090099)
2010 ND 66
Highlight: Warrantless electronic monitoring and recording of a defendant's face-to-face conversations with a confidential informant, with the informant's consent, occurring in the informant's car does not violate North Dakota's constitutional search and seizure provision. |
|
Odom v. State (Consolidated w/ 20090249)
2010 ND 65 Highlight: On a post-conviction ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, if an appellant has failed to meet the first burden of proving that his counsel's representation fell outside of the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, it is unnecessary to address the argument that the appellant was prejudiced by his counsel's claimed deficient performance. |
|
Estate of Fisk
2010 ND 64
Highlight: The review of fees paid or taken by a personal representative is left to the sound discretion of the district court. |
|
State v. Wolfer
2010 ND 63
Highlight: The severity of a legal infraction is not relevant when determining whether the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to initiate a stop. |
|
Laib v. Laib
2010 ND 62 Highlight: An appellant who fails to raise an argument concerning a denied motion in an appeal cannot bring the same motion two years later and appeal its denial. |
|
State v. Fickert
2010 ND 61
Highlight: Where a defendant seeks to plead guilty over interactive video network ("IVN"), if defense counsel appears from a site separate from the defendant, the district court must (1) make a finding on the record that the defense counsel's participation from a separate site is necessary; (2) confirm on the record that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily consented to defense counsel's participation from the separate site; and (3) allow confidential attorney-client communication if requested. |
|
RRMC Construction v. Bill Barth
2010 ND 60
Highlight: A district court does not err when it decides between two permissible views of the evidence. |
|
Wolfer v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation
2010 ND 59 Highlight: The Department of Transportation cannot unilaterally, without notice, decide to take the testimony of a witness telephonically at a hearing on the revocation or suspension of an individual's driving privileges. |
|
Morton County Social Service Board, et al. v. Cramer
2010 ND 58
Highlight: A stricter statutory standard for modifying custody applies when a motion to modify custody is made within two years of a prior order establishing custody. |
|
State v. M.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 57 Highlight: Whether a statute is unconstitutional is a question of law, and a statute will be upheld unless its challenger demonstrates the statute is unconstitutional. |
|
Seiler v. Dept. of Human Services
2010 ND 55
Highlight: An appeal from an administrative decision must challenge the agency's ultimate decision; otherwise, the court is called on to issue an impermissible advisory opinion. |
|
Hoffner v. Job Service N.D.
2010 ND 54 Highlight: Judgment affirming Job Service North Dakota's denial of unemployment benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). |
|
State v. Smestad (consolidated w/20090272, 20090273, & 20090303)
2010 ND 53 Highlight: Criminal judgments entered upon guilty pleas of theft of property and an order revoking probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). |
|
State v. Delaney
2010 ND 52 Highlight: District court judgment entered after a jury found defendant guilty of abuse or neglect of a child is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Mertz v. 999 Quebec, Inc., et al.
2010 ND 51 Highlight: An order granting summary judgment is not appealable, but an attempted appeal from an order granting summary judgment will be treated as an appeal from a subsequently entered consistent judgment, if one exists. |
|
Great Western Bank v. Willmar Poultry Co.
2010 ND 50
Highlight: Statutory lien laws are remedial and will be liberally construed to effectuate their purpose of protecting those who contribute labor, skill, or materials. |
|
Home of Economy v. Burlington Northern (Cross Ref. w/20070002 & 20040267)
2010 ND 49
Highlight: The party asserting the existence of a public road by prescription bears the burden of proving the general, continuous, uninterrupted, and adverse use of the road by the public under a claim of right for twenty years. |
|
Jarick Products v. MID AM Group, et al.
2010 ND 48 Highlight: District court order denying Peterson's motion to vacate a default judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). |
|
Van Beek, et al. v. Umber, et al.
2010 ND 47 Highlight: A trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs under N.D.C.C. 28-26-31 is discretionary, but the court's exercise of that discretion must be based on evidence that the pleadings were made without reasonable cause and not in good faith, and are found to be untrue. |
|
Interest of K.J., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated w/20090265)
2010 ND 46
Highlight: A juvenile court may terminate parental rights if there is clear and convincing evidence: (1) the child is a deprived child; (2) the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue; and (3) the child is suffering, or will in the future probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral or emotional harm.. |
|
Harris v. Harris
2010 ND 45
Highlight: There is no statute or rule authorizing an appeal to district court from a magistrate's decision on a disorderly conduct restraining order. |
|
Westby v. Schmidt, et al.
2010 ND 44
Highlight: Flaws and weaknesses in an expert witness's opinion go to the weight the trier of fact should give the opinion and not its admissibility. |
|
State ex rel. Dept. of Labor v. Riemers, et al.
2010 ND 43 Highlight: A party who fails to appeal from an order denying a motion for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) waives any issues covered therein and may not simply file a second N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion on the same grounds in lieu of an appeal. |
|
Zimmerman v. WSI, et al.
2010 ND 42 Highlight: An injured worker may be entitled to temporary partial disability benefits for a cumulative total of five years. |
|
Dunn v. ND Dept. of Transportation
2010 ND 41
Highlight: Judicial estoppel prohibits a party from taking inconsistent or contradictory positions during litigation. |
|
McAllister v. McAllister, et al.
2010 ND 40
Highlight: Granting visitation to a third party is a lesser intrusion on a parent's constitutional right to the custody and companionship of his or her children than granting decisionmaking responsibility and primary residential responsibility to a third party. |
|
State v. Dudley
2010 ND 39
Highlight: Under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer may search a vehicle without a warrant if the officer has probable cause. |
|
Tweed v. State
2010 ND 38
Highlight: To obtain post-conviction relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence, the petitioner must demonstrate (1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) the failure to learn about the evidence at the time of trial was not the result of a lack of diligence; (3) the newly discovered evidence is material to issues at trial; and (4) the weight and quality of the evidence would likely result in an acquittal. |
|
Oie v. State
2010 ND 37 Highlight: Order dismissing application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
State v. Henrickson
2010 ND 36 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of escape is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
|
Parisien v. Parisien
2010 ND 35
Highlight: A district court may award spousal support to a party in a divorce action for any period of time. Spousal support determinations are findings of fact and will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. |
|
Davis v. Enget, et al.
2010 ND 34
Highlight: In legal malpractice claims, expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether an attorney's conduct fell below that standard. |
|
Wolt v. Wolt (cross ref. 20090103)
2010 ND 33
Highlight: A district court's finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. A domestic violence protection order petitioner must prove "actual or imminent domestic violence" by a preponderance of the evidence. |
|
Hagerott v. Morton Co. Bd. of Commissioners
2010 ND 32
Highlight: A person is aggrieved and has standing to appeal a county commission zoning decision if the person has some legal interest that may be enlarged or diminished by the decision appealed from. |
|
Dufner v. Trottier (Consolidated w/20090251; Cross-Ref. with 20010163)
2010 ND 31
Highlight: Prolonged exposure to adult conflict is not in a child's best interests. |
|
State v. Byzewski (CONSOLIDATED WITH 20090151)
2010 ND 30
Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), "a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion." |
|
State v. Addai
2010 ND 29
Highlight: During a stop of a vehicle, a law enforcement officer seizes every person in the vehicle, and therefore a passenger in the vehicle may challenge the legality of the stop. |
|
Petition of Berger
2010 ND 28
Highlight: When a minor is involved, the requirement that the district court determine whether there is "proper and reasonable cause" for a proposed name change necessarily includes consideration of the best interests of the child. |