 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| B. J. Kadrmas, Inc. v. Oxbow Energy, LLC, No. 20060137,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a title company sought payment for work done on an oil company's behalf, it was not clearly erroneous to find that the parties entered into an implied contract under N.D. Cent. Code § 9-06-01, because, inter alia, the oil company never notified the title company that it had not accepted the terms of the contract or disputed the invoices.
|
|||||
| Klimple v. Bahl, No. 20060195,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff presented insufficient admissible evidence to create genuine issue of material fact on issue of whether motor vehicle accident proximately caused or aggravated his Kienbock's disease, as plastic surgeon testified only that accident possibly caused or could have aggravated plaintiff's Kienbock's disease.
|
|||||
| Leftbear v. State, No. 20060244,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applicant sought post-conviction relief following conviction for aggravated assault. District court denied request, and applicant sought permission to extend time for filing notice of appeal, pursuant to N.D. R. App. P. 4(d). Request for extension of time was properly denied because applicant failed to show excusable neglect or abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Meier v. Said, No. 20060248,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not an abuse of discretion to issue a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order against a husband under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-31.2-01, because the wife's testimony about abortion pill and rape incidents provided reasonable grounds; the husband waived his argument regarding her testimony by failing to object in the district court.
|
|||||
| State v. Bates, No. 20060179,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Factual basis was sufficient to support defendant's guilty plea for gross sexual imposition with a child victim, N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-3, as it showed (1) that he touched her privates and buttocks, and put his sexual organ in her mouth; (2) where offenses occurred; and (3) that the victim was between four and five when sexual contact occurred.
|
|||||
| State v. Ernst, Nos. 20060250 & 20060251,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Loughead, No. 20060160,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a failing to properly tag a big game animal case, the State did not have to disclose a tipster's name to defendant because (1) under N.D. R. Crim. P. 16, tipster was anonymous and State did not have tipster's name; and (2) even if State had tipster's name, N.D. R. Evid. 509(a) created a limited privilege against disclosure of tipster's identity.
|
|||||
| State v. Proell, No. 20060222,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: North Dakota would not stay its proceedings until defendant's federal appeal was fully adjudicated as (1) the state prosecution for unlawful possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia and the federal prosecution for illegal possession of firearms were quite different; and (2) the state court proceedings were not ancillary to federal proceedings.
|
|||||
| Hentz v. Elma Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 20060198,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In zoning ordinance dispute between township and farmers, tree farmers could plants trees within 120 feet of center of road because township's ordinance, Elma Township, North Dakota, Zoning Regulation, § 3.8 were read with other ordinances that excluded agriculture from zoning regulations, and trees in this instance were considered agriculture.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
