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.
	State Courts - North Dakota - February 28 - March 2, 2006
	Bernhardt v. F.F. (In the Interest of F.F.), No. 20050210, SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 28, 2006, Filed View this case - free   Overview: Trial court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights to her children as findings under either N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-44(1)(b)(1) or N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-44(1)(b)(2) were sufficient to support termination. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Fischer v. Berger, No. 20050182, SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, February 28, 2006, Filed View this case - free   Overview: A trial court properly awarded judgment to defendants in plaintiffs' action, which claimed a prescriptive easement for a right-of-way over defendants' land, because while plaintiffs proved continuous and uninterrupted use of a trail for more than 20 years, they failed to establish that their use was adverse. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	State v. Hoverson, No. 20050237, SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 2, 2006, Filed View this case - free   Overview: Defendant's conviction of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance was affirmed because although the district court interpreted N.D. R. Evid. 608(b) too narrowly when it denied defendant's request to cross-examine the confidential informant about the facts of the confidential informant's theft of property conviction, the error was harmless. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Back to Top
	www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us   CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.