 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Donlin v. Donlin, No. 20060128,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An equal division of the parties' property in a divorce action was upheld where the trial court properly considered the ages of the parties, their earning ability, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, and their station in life. While the wife was receiving social security disability income, there was no evidence of a permanent award.
|
|||||
| Lucier v. Lucier, No. 20060060,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in finding the failure of a property to sell, exhaustion of home equity loan proceeds used to meet husband's spousal support obligation, and reduction in wife's living expenses were all material changes of circumstances and reducing the husband's spousal support obligation from, inter alia, $ 2,400 per month to $ 1,000 per month.
|
|||||
| State v. Goebel, No. 20060147,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court had not erroneously denied defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements as he was informed of his Miranda rights both verbally and in writing prior to the start of interview, he signed a waiver of rights form at that time, and, even if he was in custody during interview, officers complied with Fifth Amendment requirements.
|
|||||
| State v. Moore, No. 20060131,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting the State's motion for additional time to bring defendant's case to trial was upheld where he was not prejudiced by the delay because he was already incarcerated on another charge; trial court's oral ruling finding good cause was a final order under N.D. Cent. Code § 29-33-03 that properly granted State's motion for additional time.
|
|||||
| State v. Stensaker, Nos. 20050453-20050454,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of criminal attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 19-03.1-23(1), 12.1-06-01(1), as 1) he possessed two prepared precursors - cold pills and anhydrous ammonia; and 2) although he still needed other over-the-counter items, he had enough pills and ammonia to manufacture methamphetamine.
|
|||||
| State v. Zahn, Nos. 20060045, 20060046, & 20060047,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of violating an order of protection because he was not allowed to challenge the validity of such without ever first raising the matter before the issuing court; moreover, service of the application for the order was not a prerequisite for a criminal conviction for violating such under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-07.1-06.
|
|||||
| Disciplinary Board v. Buresh (In re Buresh), No. 20060230,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In attorney disciplinary proceeding, supreme court declined to impose 18-month suspension, and it disbarred attorney because attorney clearly and convincingly violated N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a) and (b), and N.D. R. Lawyer Disc. 1.2(A)(3) by converting client's funds for his own use and by being deceitful with client.
|
|||||
| N.D. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Hsu, No. 20060134,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: North Dakota State Board of Medical Examiners was entitled to rely on the cumulative effect of two disciplinary proceedings and Board's expertise in deciding that doctor's conduct reflected a serious departure from appropriate standard of care. Also, Board was authorized to revoke his license; thus, district court erred in reversing Board's order.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
