 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Crystal Sugar Co. v. Traill County Bd. of Comm'rs, No. 20050343,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A taxpayer's due process rights were not violated by the procedure used by a board of commissioners in hearing an application for tax abatements; the taxpayer was given an opportunity to present evidence, and, since the board was not a judicial tribunal, due process did not require a judicial trial.
|
|||||
| City of Grand Forks v. Hendon/DDRC/BP, LLC, No. 20050197,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a condemnation proceeding, landowner alleged that value of loss of lease was not taken into consideration. Trial court did not err in damages' award, pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 32-15-22, because issue of value went to weight of evidence, presented in form of city's experts, which was a matter for jury.
|
|||||
| Gust v. State, No. 20050381,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's decision denying the inmate's request for 203 days of credit from the date of the arrest was affirmed, pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-02(2), because the inmate could not receive incarceration credit for the time that related to service for revocation of the inmate's period of probation.
|
|||||
| Haugen v. BioLife Plasma Servs., No. 20050310,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury action, trial court properly rejected plasma donor's request for jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur because donor was able to present specific evidence of needle becoming embedded in her arm's soft tissue, rather than a vein; therefore, donor had no need for plasma.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. 20060010,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 29-32.1-03(2), district court did not err when it allowed State to amend answer to allege laches given unreasonable delay as result of defendant's lack of diligence and State's ability to defend against petition had been diminished. Court met requirements of N.D. Cent. Code § 29-32.1-11 in its findings of fact.
|
|||||
| Kostelecky v. Kostelecky, No. 20050231,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly valued the parties' marital property, but, pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-24(1), the division of property was not conducted according to the guidelines and the spousal support awarded to recognize and reward wife's contributions to marriage was not sufficient for supreme court to understand basis for the award.
|
|||||
| Porter v. Porter, No. 20050358,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-07, district court erred in finding that it was not in child's best interests to move to Alaska with father where court had to consider benefits of maintaining custodial relationship and economic and non-economic advantages. There was no evidence to conclude that father would not honor court-ordered visitation.
|
|||||
| Roth v. Hoffer, No. 20050328,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In appeal of trial court's amended judgment in divorce matter, husband was not entitled to relief under N.D. R. Civ. P. 59 and N.D. R. Civ. P. 60(a) because husband did not show that there was insufficiency of evidence, and trial court had jurisdiction to correct clerical mistake in an order pertaining to division of husband's 401(k) plan.
|
|||||
| State v. Frederick, No. 20050432,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
