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 12446 results
|
Interest of D.H. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 103 Highlight: Parental rights may be terminated when a child is deprived, and the court finds (1) that the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue, and (2) that such continued deprivation will probably cause the child to suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm. |
|
M.M., et al. v. Fargo Public School Dist. #1, et al.
2010 ND 102
Highlight: The recreational use immunity statutes do not bar suits against school districts brought by students injured on school grounds during the school day. |
|
State ex. rel. Schlect v. Wolff
2010 ND 101
Highlight: An appellate court will not engage in unassisted searches through parties' briefs for a rationale supporting a court's decision. |
|
Paulson v. Paulson
2010 ND 100
Highlight: Because a discretionary trust interest is an expectancy that gave no assurance of any future benefit, the trial court did not err in excluding the trust from the marital estate. |
|
Dutton v. Workforce Safety & Insurance
2010 ND 99
Highlight: A permanent partial impairment evaluation must be conducted by an independent, unbiased physician. |
|
Matter of Midgett (Cross-Ref w/20080255 & 20070109)
2010 ND 98 Highlight: Where the district court makes sufficiently detailed findings of fact, supported by the record, on whether a committed individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior, the reviewing court will not reverse on that issue. |
|
City of Fargo v. Knodle
2010 ND 97 Highlight: Judgment entered after defendant was found guilty of driving while under the influence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Disciplinary Board v. Wolff (Interim Suspension)
2010 ND 96 Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered. |
|
Botner v. Bismarck Parks, et al.
2010 ND 95
Highlight: Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law reviewed de novo on the entire record. |
|
Sonnenberg v. Sonnenberg
2010 ND 94
Highlight: When an obligor owes a duty of support to at least one obligee, as well as a duty of support to a child living with the obligor who is not also a child of that obligee, the child support guidelines require that the district court make an allowance for the child living with the obligor. |
|
Estate of Loomer (cross ref. w/20070018)
2010 ND 93
Highlight: Partition is an equitable remedy governed by equitable principles, and district courts have wide judicial discretion in partition actions to do equity and to make a fair and just division of the property or proceeds between the parties. |
|
Skogen, et al. v. Hemen Township Board, et al.
2010 ND 92
Highlight: A township has a mandatory duty to construct or reconstruct a township road in a manner that does not obstruct the natural flow and drainage of surface waters in accordance with the stream crossing standards prepared by the department of transportation and the state engineer. |
|
Stenehjem, ex rel. v. Crosslands, Inc.
2010 ND 91
Highlight: For the purposes of the corporate farming law, "the land in question" refers to the entire tract purchased and requires the court to view the property as a single tract. |
|
State v. Moe
2010 ND 90 Highlight: The standard for reconciling a jury verdict is whether the verdict is legally inconsistent. Verdicts are not legally inconsistent when they can legally coexist and when the jury's findings are not clearly contrary to the evidence. |
|
State v. Smith
2010 ND 89
Highlight: Whether the trial court's findings of fact reach the level of probable cause is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal. |
|
State ex rel. Harris v. Lee, et al.
2010 ND 88
Highlight: The Supreme Court exercises its authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. |
|
Dupay v. Dupay
2010 ND 87
Highlight: Proceeds from a personal injury settlement must be considered in calculating an obligor's income for child support purposes. |
|
Erickson, et al. v. Erickson, et al.
2010 ND 86
Highlight: A claim of constructive fraud requires reviewing the circumstances leading to the formation of the contract. |
|
Sheets v. Farhart Law Firm, et al.
2010 ND 85
Highlight: On appeal from a bench trial, a district court's findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. |
|
Interest of A.R. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2010 ND 84
Highlight: A violation of the disorderly conduct statute does not necessarily depend on the particular content of the speech involved, but on the behavior. |
|
Arnegard, et al. v. Cayko, et al.
2010 ND 83
Highlight: The primary objective in interpreting a statute is to determine the intent of the legislature by first looking at the language of the statute and giving words their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless the words are defined in the code or the drafters clearly intended otherwise. |
|
State v. Gietzen
2010 ND 82
Highlight: After a chemical analysis is received into evidence, the propriety of the blood draw is a question of fact affecting the weight to be given the results of the chemical analysis. |
|
Jacob v. State
2010 ND 81 Highlight: Proposed expert testimony must be viewed within the context of the other evidence and the overall conduct of the trial when a post-conviction relief petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. |
|
Perius v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co., et al.
2010 ND 80
Highlight: Affidavits supporting and opposing a motion for summary judgment must be made on personal knowledge, set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show affirmatively the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavit. |
|
State v. Ebertz
2010 ND 79
Highlight: The Supreme Court has authority under N.D. Const. art. VI, sec. 3, to promulgate the procedural rules followed by the courts, and a procedural rule adopted by the Supreme Court prevails in a conflict with a statutory procedural rule. |
|
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). |