 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Feland v. P.F. (In the Interest of P.F.), No. 20050302,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent was properly committed as a sexually dangerous individual, N.D. Cent. Code § 25-03.3-01, because he had a history of sexually predatory conduct and numerous mental diseases that made him likely to re-offend, and the State carried its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was a sexually dangerous individual.
|
|||||
| Flanagan v. State, No. 20050226,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a gross sexual imposition case, counsel was not ineffective, under Sixth Amendment, for failing to interview petitioner's stepdaughter where, at post-conviction hearing, she did not testify, petitioner did not know how she would have testified, and there was testimony from other witnesses who saw petitioner inappropriately touching complainant.
|
|||||
| Gustafson v. N.D. Dep't of Human Servs., No. 20050390,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: North Dakota Department of Human Services (Department) order that patient was not eligible for Medicaid was not in accordance with N.D. Cent. Code § 50-24.1-02.8(2) because it failed to disclose estimate of patient's wife's reasonable life expectancy to the couple; Department had to determine life expectancy and reevaluate patient's eligibility.
|
|||||
| Larson v. Schuetzle, No. 20050418,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12-47-11 and 12-47-11 gave warden authority and control over prison, warden did not violate prisoner's rights by enforcing rules prohibiting possession of contraband and allowing receipt of magazines only if they were received directly by publisher against prisoner for possessing magazines given to him by other inmates.
|
|||||
| Marchus v. Marchus, No. 20050329,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in vacating father's child support obligation effective January 2001 where, under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-08.1-05(1)(c), it made an impermissible retroactive modification of father's obligation by setting modification date to date before he made his motion to modify; father could not be relieved of past child support obligation.
|
|||||
| Spicer v. Spicer (In the Interest of Spicer), No. 20050366,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's findings about parties' confusion resulting from visitation agreement supported determination that the mother did not willfully and inexcusably violate the second amended judgment and she was not in contempt. Under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-07, father consented to mother's move to Michigan. Visitation schedule was properly modified.
|
|||||
| State v. Davenport, No. 20050274,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Genre, Nos. 20050238 - 20050239 & 20050247 - 20050248,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's consent to search was voluntary, Fourth Amendment, where defendant voluntarily met with officers, they did not attempt to exert any physical control, defendant made a call on his cell phone during the interview which the officers did not attempt to prohibit, and defendant was not in custody at the time he gave consent.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
