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.
951 - 960 of 12418 results
State v. Netterville
2022 ND 153
Docket No.: 20220017
Filing Date: 8/4/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
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
Docket No.: 20220017
Filing Date: 8/4/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight: Deference is given to an administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations.
Administrative regulation for excluding autism voucher program funding as a parental responsibility did not involve complex and technical matters calling for agency expertise, and the Department of Human Services’ interpretation was not entitled to appreciable deference.
Sailer, et al. v. Sailer, et al.
2022 ND 151
Docket No.: 20220050
Filing Date: 8/4/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
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.
If the nonparent fails to plead a prima facie case that the nonparent “[i]s a consistent caretaker; or . . . [h]as a substantial relationship with the child and denial of custody or visitation would result in harm to the child,” a court shall dismiss the petition for nonparent visitation.
Sailer, et al. v. Sailer, et al.
2022 ND 151
Docket No.: 20220050
Filing Date: 8/4/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Northwest Landowners Association v. State, et al.
2022 ND 150
Docket No.: 20210148
Filing Date: 8/4/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
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.
North Dakota law has long established that surface owners have a property interest in pore space.
Surface owners have a right to compensation for the use of their pore space for disposal and storage operations.
Government-authorized physical invasions of property constitute the “clearest sort of taking” and therefore are a per se taking.
A statute that strips surface owners of their right to possess, use, and exclude others from pore space within their lands and assigns that right to oil and gas operators without surface owners’ consent or compensation is a per se taking.
It is a fundamental principle that a statute may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another part and that if the valid part is severable from the rest, the portion which is constitutional may stand.
42 U.S.C. § 1988 authorizes attorney’s fees to a prevailing challenger of a federal constitutional claim in state court against the state or a state official sued in his or her official capacity regardless of whether §§ 1983 and 1988 are expressly pled in the complaint.
Northwest Landowners Association v. State, et al.
2022 ND 150
Docket No.: 20210148
Filing Date: 8/4/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
State v. Pendleton
2022 ND 149
Docket No.: 20210287
Filing Date: 8/4/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
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.
Non-public exchanges between counsel and the court on such technical legal issues and routine administrative problems do not hinder the objectives which the Court in Waller observed were fostered by public trials.
If it would be unreasonable to conclude the defendant’s absence had any effect on the proceedings or the result, such an error is harmless and does not warrant a reversal.
We consider jury instructions as a whole, and determine whether they correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law, even though part of the instructions when standing alone may be insufficient or erroneous.
If juror misconduct is noticed and the criminal defendant does not object or request a mistrial, reversal requires obvious error. We exercise our power to consider obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.
This Court has carved out a narrow exception to the general rule that statutes are not retroactive unless expressly declared so by the Legislature when the statute in question involves an ameliorating penal amendment to a criminal statute.
State v. Pendleton
2022 ND 149
Docket No.: 20210287
Filing Date: 8/4/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
