 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beckler v. Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 20050195,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment dismissing the claimant's slip and fall case was affirmed because the claimant presented no evidence that the school allowed water to stand on the stairs, creating a danger of someone slipping, and the claimant did not establish that water on the stairs caused her fall and injuries.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, No. 20050365,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Requiring former professor, whose doctoral degree was revoked on grounds of plagiarism, to exhaust his administrative remedies before going to court was appropriate because N.D. Const. art. VIII, § 6, granted the State Board of Higher Education full authority to control and administer the State's higher education institutions.
|
|||||
| Krall v. State, Nos. 20050211-20050213,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kramer v. Kramer, No. 20050222,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in finding settlement agreement was not unconscionable; inter alia, it stated agreement was fair and reasonable disposition of property of the parties required by N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-24, there was no evidence husband entered agreement by mistake, or that his signature was obtained by fraud, duress, menace, or undue influence.
|
|||||
| Manning v. Manning, No. 20050065,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's motion for relief under N.D. R. Civ. P. 60(b) was denied in a custody case because there was no showing of abuse, a guardian ad litem was not given an improper function, no relief was warranted based on an investigation into the father's background, there was insufficient evidence of spoliation, and the law of custody was properly applied.
|
|||||
| Nesvig v. Nesvig, No. 20050125,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing the former client's malpractice action against the attorney where it found the attorney did not breach it fiduciary duty to invest the client's funds in a more prudent investment and the trial court did not err in quashing the client's subpoena issued to an "unretained" expert under N.D. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)
|
|||||
| Parizek v. State, Nos. 20050260-262,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for postconviction relief pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 29-32.1-09 where it reviewed the record to determine whether there was evidence supporting his claims without giving him an opportunity to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue of material fact.
|
|||||
| Rothberg v. Rothberg, No. 20050198,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court failed to make specific findings of fact concerning a motion to modify spousal support under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-24.1 and a motion for attorney fees under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-23, a remand was necessary for compliance with N.D. R. Civ. P. 52(a) to allow for sufficient judicial review.
|
|||||
| Sack v. Sack, No. 20050167,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of rehabilitative spousal support for six years in favor of the wife was affirmed because the North Dakota Supreme Court elected to dispose of the "disadvantaged spouse" doctrine and reemphasized the importance of a comprehensive analysis under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
