 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, No. 20060176,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City ordinance prohibiting excessive, continuous, or untimely dog barking provided minimum guidelines for a reasonable police officer, judge, or jury charged with its enforcement and provided a reasonable person with adequate and fair warning of the prohibited conduct. Ordinance did not violate defendant's substantive right to due process.
|
|||||
| Jelsing v. Peterson, No. 20060112,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision awarding primary custody of parties' child to mother was not clearly erroneous as it properly evaluated best interests of the child factors under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1). District court did not clearly err in allowing mother to move with child to Arizona. Mother was properly denied attorney fees under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-23.
|
|||||
| State v. Bachmeier, No. 20060235,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driving under the influence case, defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by a trooper's act of speeding to catch up and follow defendant's car because the trooper was not required to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion at the time the vehicle was initially pursued. However, this standard was met for the subsequent stop.
|
|||||
| State v. Brossart, No. 20060242,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-08-02(1) when he physically resisted handcuffing during the issuance of a citation; moreover, a district court rejected his assertion that resistance was justified under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-05-03(1) by convicting him.
|
|||||
| State v. Frohlich, No. 20060178,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for attempted murder in violation of N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-06-01(1) and 12.1-16-01 and reckless endangerment were appropriate, in part because the denial of his continuance was correct since defendant had several weeks to find another attorney and he had the remedy of having a different attorney cross-examine the victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Mulske, No. 20060184,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant waived his right to testify because he waited until after the jury convicted him to advise the district court that he wished he had taken the stand rather than having followed his attorney's advice not to testify. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen the evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Olson, No. 20060182, No. 20060183,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a minor in consumption of alcohol case, denial of defendants' motions to suppress was proper as the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop under N.D. Const. art. I, § 8 based on his observations that one defendant appeared to be running from the other defendant and seemed to be crying, at 2:30 a.m. in December.
|
|||||
| Gratech Co. v. Wold Eng'g, P.C., No. 20060272,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 32-29.3-23, arbitration award against the company was proper where there was no evidence that the arbitrator intentionally disregarded the law or act in a completely irrational manner. Under N.D. Cent. Code § 32-29.3-25(3), district court had to make findings of fact to support its denial of attorney's fees to company.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
