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.
801 - 900 of 12358 results
|
Interest of E.H. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consol. w/20220273-20220276)
2022 ND 200 Highlight: Order affirming juvenile court findings of fact and orders of the judicial referee terminating parental rights summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7). |
|
Interest of E.H. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consol. w/20220273-20220276)
2022 ND 200 |
|
State v. Ismail (consolidated w/20220093)
2022 ND 199 Highlight: Criminal judgments of possession and delivery of a controlled substance are affirmed under N.D.R.Ev. 614(b) and sufficient weight of evidence and sufficiency of evidence. |
|
State v. Ismail (consolidated w/20220093)
2022 ND 199 |
|
State v. Archambault
2022 ND 198
Highlight: Upon a defendant’s written request, a prosecuting attorney must disclose all documents and objects material to the defense for use in preparation for trial. |
|
State v. Archambault
2022 ND 198 |
|
State v. Sapa
2022 ND 197
Highlight: The crime of gross sexual imposition with a child under the age of fifteen is a strict liability offense. |
|
State v. Sapa
2022 ND 197 |
|
State v. Peters (consolidated w/ 20220075)
2022 ND 196
Highlight: A trial court violates a criminal defendant’s speedy trial right only when four factors, in sum, weigh against the state: the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, proper assertion of the right, and actual prejudice to the accused. |
|
State v. Peters (consolidated w/ 20220075)
2022 ND 196 |
|
State v. Lane
2022 ND 195 Highlight: When this Court views evidence admitted at trial in a light most favorable to a verdict, and finds sufficient evidence exists that would allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor of conviction, a criminal judgment must be affirmed. |
|
State v. Lane
2022 ND 195 |
|
Interest of K.L.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2022 ND 194 Highlight: Dismissal of motion requesting termination of mother’s parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
Interest of K.L.B. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2022 ND 194 |
|
Ordahl v. Lykken, et al.
2022 ND 193
Highlight: Words are given their ordinary and popular meaning unless the words are used in a technical sense or given a special meaning. |
|
Ordahl v. Lykken, et al.
2022 ND 193 |
|
Williamson v. State
2022 ND 192 Highlight: A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b). |
|
Williamson v. State
2022 ND 192 |
|
Troubadour Oil & Gas v. Rustad, et al.
2022 ND 191
Highlight: This Court’s authority to issue supervisory writs is discretionary and is used only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases where no adequate alternative remedy exists. |
|
Troubadour Oil & Gas v. Rustad, et al.
2022 ND 191 |
|
Addai v. State
2022 ND 190 Highlight: A defendant’s ability to waive their right to a public trial knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, as declared in State v. Martinez, 2021 ND 42, ¶ 13, 956 N.W.2d 772, is not retroactive in application to previous cases as it is neither a substantive rule nor a rule that qualifies as watershed implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of a criminal proceeding. |
|
Addai v. State
2022 ND 190 |
|
Kuntz v. State
2022 ND 189
Highlight: Whether a defendant is competent to enter a plea is a question of fact, and a district court’s finding on the issue will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. |
|
Kuntz v. State
2022 ND 189 |
|
Kratz v. State
2022 ND 188 Highlight: A district court does not abuse its discretion when it dismisses an application for post-conviction relief where the applicant failed to provide any evidentiary support for the claims. |
|
Kratz v. State
2022 ND 188 |
|
Knapp v. The Jones Financial Co., et al.
2022 ND 187 Highlight: Rule 43 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure is intended to provide a mechanism for substitution of a party who dies after proceedings in the district court have concluded. Under Rule 43(a)(3), an attorney may file a notice of appeal on behalf of a decedent if he or she was “entitled to appeal” before dying. If a party dies during proceedings in the district court—i.e., before the party is entitled to appeal, North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 25 applies. |
|
Knapp v. The Jones Financial Co., et al.
2022 ND 187 |
|
Goff v. NDDOT
2022 ND 186
Highlight: The public does not have a right of access to a private parking lot for vehicular use when the lot is marked “private property” and a city ordinance makes such use unlawful when so marked. |
|
Goff v. NDDOT
2022 ND 186 |
|
Richardson v. Richardson, et al.
2022 ND 185 Highlight: A district court order denying a motion to modify residential responsibility and denying a motion to reconsider is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) and (4). |
|
Richardson v. Richardson, et al.
2022 ND 185 |
|
State v. Vickerman
2022 ND 184
Highlight: A hearsay statement may be admitted as an exception if it illustrates the declarant’s state of mind, is relevant to the criminal act in question, and shows a defendant’s motive to engage in that act. |
|
State v. Vickerman
2022 ND 184 |
|
Wilkinson, et al. v. Bd. of University and School Lands of the State of N.D.
2022 ND 183
Highlight: A person bringing a claim against the State for an injury shall present to the director of the office of management and budget within 180 days after the alleged injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered a written notice. |
|
Wilkinson, et al. v. Bd. of University and School Lands of the State of N.D.
2022 ND 183 |
|
Northern Oil & Gas v. EOG Resources, et al.
2022 ND 182
Highlight: A transfer in writing is called a grant. A grant takes effect upon its delivery. For a delivery to occur, a grantor must intend to pass title. Delivery of a grant with intent that title transfer upon some contingency or condition is prohibited. A conditional delivery is absolute. |
|
Northern Oil & Gas v. EOG Resources, et al.
2022 ND 182 |
|
State v. Wilson
2022 ND 181 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). |
|
State v. Wilson
2022 ND 181 |
|
Schmidt v. Hageness, et al.
2022 ND 180 Highlight: Dismissal of complaint alleging quiet title to land is summarily affirmed under N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01 because warranty deed failed to meet requirements under N.D.C.C. § 47-10-05. |
|
Schmidt v. Hageness, et al.
2022 ND 180 |
|
Schmidt v. Hageness, et al.
2022 ND 179
Highlight: Dismissal of complaint alleging quiet title to land is summarily affirmed under N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01 because warranty deed failed to meet requirements under N.D.C.C. § 47-10-05. |
|
Schmidt v. Hageness, et al.
2022 ND 179 |
|
Queen v. Martel, et al.
2022 ND 178 Highlight: An award of equal residential responsibility of a minor child is remanded to the district court to make specific findings of fact on whether the domestic violence rebuttable presumption under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) is triggered and, if so, whether the presumption is rebutted. |
|
Queen v. Martel, et al.
2022 ND 178 |
|
Rekow v. Durheim
2022 ND 177 Highlight: A petitioner for a disorderly conduct restraining order must allege specific facts or threats showing the acts are intended to affect the petitioner's safety, security, or privacy. |
|
Rekow v. Durheim
2022 ND 177 |
|
State v. Pieper
2022 ND 176 Highlight: A criminal judgment of driving under the influence and driving under suspension is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P.35.1(a)(2) and (7). |
|
State v. Pieper
2022 ND 176 |
|
State v. Lockwood (consolidated w/20220020 & 20220021)
2022 ND 175 Highlight: Three amended criminal judgments are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) because the appellant’s brief did not contain the minimum requirements of N.D.R.App.P. 28. |
|
State v. Lockwood (consolidated w/20220020 & 20220021)
2022 ND 175 |
|
Interest of T.L.E. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2022 ND 174 Highlight: A district court’s orders for continuing hospitalization and involuntary treatment with medication are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
|
Interest of T.L.E. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2022 ND 174 |
|
Mayo v. Buchholz, et al.
2022 ND 173 Highlight: A district court order and amended judgment modifying parenting time is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
Mayo v. Buchholz, et al.
2022 ND 173 |
|
Gomm v. Winterfeldt, et al.
2022 ND 172
Highlight: Jurisdiction to modify an existing child custody determination is made independent from registration and enforcement of a foreign determination. |
|
Gomm v. Winterfeldt, et al.
2022 ND 172 |
|
Whitetail Wave v. XTO Energy, et al.
2022 ND 171
Highlight: There is no right to appeal when there is not a final judgment. |
|
Whitetail Wave v. XTO Energy, et al.
2022 ND 171 |
|
Interest of A.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)
2022 ND 169
Highlight: While this Court defers to a tribe on its membership determinations, without consistent and clear factual findings supporting the application of ICWA and North Dakota heightened review for Indian families, this Court is unable to determine the father’s issues on appeal. |
|
Hendrix, et al. v. Jaeger
2022 ND 168 Highlight: The Secretary of State misapplies the law by excluding qualified elector signatures on circulated petitions on the basis of a determination that a pattern of likely notary violations on some petitions permitted the wholesale invalidation of all signatures on all petitions that were sworn before the same notary. |
|
Hendrix, et al. v. Jaeger
2022 ND 168 |
|
Interest of J.G. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated w/20220190)
2022 ND 167 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Interest of J.G. (CONFIDENTIAL) (consolidated w/20220190)
2022 ND 167 |
|
Newfield Exploration Company, et al. v. State, et al.
2022 ND 166
Highlight: An obligation arises from the parties’ contract or the operation of law. |
|
Newfield Exploration Company, et al. v. State, et al.
2022 ND 166 |
|
Kershaw v. Finnson, et al.
2022 ND 165
Highlight: Contradictory testimony is resolved in favor of affirmance on appeal. |
|
Kershaw v. Finnson, et al.
2022 ND 165 |
|
Sholy v. Cass Cty. Comm’n
2022 ND 164 Highlight: An appeal from a decision of a county commission must be made within thirty days of the decision under N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01(1). The time to appeal commences when the commission votes to approve the decision. |
|
Sholy v. Cass Cty. Comm’n
2022 ND 164 |
|
Vogt v. State
2022 ND 163
Highlight: The North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in post-conviction relief proceedings to the extent they do not conflict with the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act. |
|
Vogt v. State
2022 ND 163 |
|
State v. Doglod
2022 ND 162 Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of terrorizing and criminal trespass is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a). |
|
State v. Doglod
2022 ND 162 |
|
Dieterle v. Dieterle n/k/a Hansen, et al.
2022 ND 161
Highlight: Orders denying a party permission to file new motions are not appealable. |
|
Dieterle v. Dieterle n/k/a Hansen, et al.
2022 ND 161 |
|
State v. Lyman
2022 ND 160
Highlight: Whether to grant a mistrial is within the district court’s discretion, which this Court will not reverse on appeal absent an abuse of such discretion. |
|
State v. Lyman
2022 ND 160 |
|
Procive v. WSI
2022 ND 159 Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 65-10-01, a claimant may appeal from a final action of Workforce Safety and Insurance to the district court of the county where the injury was inflicted or of the county in which they reside, and the claimant has the burden to show the district court has jurisdiction. |
|
Procive v. WSI
2022 ND 159 |
|
Puklich v. Puklich, et al.
2022 ND 158
Highlight: The doctrine of issue preclusion bars relitigation of issues decided in a prior action. |
|
Puklich v. Puklich, et al.
2022 ND 158 |
|
State v. Pulkrabek (consolidated with 20220011 - 20220013)
2022 ND 157
Highlight: The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act applies to instances where a detainer has been filed against a person imprisoned in a correctional institution in the state of North Dakota. |
|
State v. Pulkrabek (consolidated with 20220011 - 20220013)
2022 ND 157 |
|
Great Plains Royalty Corp. v. Earl Schwartz Co., et al.
2022 ND 156
Highlight: Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to hear and determine the general subject involved in the action. |
|
Great Plains Royalty Corp. v. Earl Schwartz Co., et al.
2022 ND 156 |
|
State, et al. v. Faber
2022 ND 155
Highlight: A district court may allow a child who is of sufficient maturity to testify about his or her preferences relating to residential responsibility. |
|
State, et al. v. Faber
2022 ND 155 |
|
Hamburger v. Hamburger
2022 ND 154
Highlight: A vested child support obligation cannot be retroactively modified. |
|
Hamburger v. Hamburger
2022 ND 154 |
|
State v. Netterville
2022 ND 153 Highlight: An amended judgment entered after revocation must total up all time served for the offense, including time served on the original sentence and time served prior to the revocation hearing, to ensure a defendant does not serve more than the maximum possible sentence for the offense. |
|
State v. Netterville
2022 ND 153 |
|
B.C. v. NDDHS
2022 ND 152
Highlight: Deference is given to an administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations. |
|
B.C. v. NDDHS
2022 ND 152 |
|
Sailer, et al. v. Sailer, et al.
2022 ND 151
Highlight: A court’s determination that a nonparent did not establish a prima facie case to support an award of nonparent visitation is reviewed de novo. |
|
Sailer, et al. v. Sailer, et al.
2022 ND 151 |
|
Northwest Landowners Association v. State, et al.
2022 ND 150
Highlight: To resolve a facial challenge, we need only interpret the challenged legislation and the relevant constitutional provisions to determine whether there is a conflict. |
|
Northwest Landowners Association v. State, et al.
2022 ND 150 |
|
State v. Pendleton
2022 ND 149
Highlight: Brief sidebars or bench conferences conducted during trial to address routine evidentiary or administrative issues outside the hearing of the jury ordinarily will not implicate the public trial right. |