 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sisk v. Sisk, No. 20050232,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported the trial court's finding that the father had deliberately and intentionally interfered with visitation through his delay tactics, failure to cooperate, and refusal to in any way facilitate visitation between his children and their mother. Therefore, the trial court did not err in modifying the child custody and visitation award.
|
|||||
| State v. Moran, No. 20050244,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no speedy trial violation under N.D. R. Crim. P. 48(b), N.D. Const. art. I, § 12, or the Sixth Amendment based on a three-year delay between a DUI citation and an arrest since both parties were responsible for some of the delay, defendant failed to assert the right when first arrested on a warrant, and he failed to show actual prejudice.
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, No. 20050181,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Stavig, No. 20050278,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme Court of North Dakota held that "maximum periods" under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-06.1(5) meant two probation periods and under § 12.1-32-06.1(2), trial court could impose only one additional period of probation not to exceed five years; court erred in ordering defendant to serve probation for third time and ordering him to pay restitution.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Stone, No. 20050269,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decedent's former wife was entitled to one-half of the proceeds from a life insurance policy under the unambiguous language of the divorce judgment, which specifically required the decedent to name the former wife as a beneficiary for as long as he was obligated to provide her child support.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Olson, No. 20050091,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that there had been domestic violence by the father against the mother as defined in N.D. Cent. Code § 14-07.1-01(2) and in finding that the domestic violence presumption under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) dictated that the mother should be granted custody of their child with the father having visitation.
|
|||||
| Van Grinsven v. G.R.H. (In re G.R.H.), No. 20040287,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sexual offender's due process and double jeopardy rights were not violated by an involuntary commitment under N.D. Cent. Code § 25-03.3-01(8) because there was no requirement of a showing of a total or complete lack of control of behavior. Section 25-03.3-01(8) contained a sufficient nexus between the offender's disorder and dangerousness.
|
|||||
| Victor v. Workforce Safety & Ins., No. 20050384, No. 20050400,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance did not err in holding that N.D. Cent. Code § 65-05.1-01(4)(e) was first appropriate rehabilitation option based on employee's abilities where merely eliminating need to lift large dogs by installing $ 10,000 hoist mechanism would not necessarily allow employee to perform her prior duties as dog groomer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
