 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cruff v. N.B. (In the Interest of N.B.), No. 20060031,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| DeMers v. DeMers, No. 20050184,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court misapplied N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) when it failed to apply the rebuttable presumption to a custody determination because the court found that the husband threatened the wife with an ax and stated that he should kill her, and the wife believed his threat and thus feared imminent harm.
|
|||||
| Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Schirado, No. 20050221,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract action brought by an insurer against an insurance agent, the trial court erred in granting the agent's motion for summary judgment, as there was circumstantial evidence presented in this case from which a trier of fact could infer the agent's conduct caused economic damages to the insurer in the form of lost business.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Sprynczynatyk, No. 20050449,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly overturned an order suspending appellee's driving privileges for 91 days for driving under the influence of alcohol where the fact that appellee was driving 8-10 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone at 12:43 a.m. did not provide the requisite reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify stopping his vehicle.
|
|||||
| Kenmare Educ. Ass'n v. Kenmare Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 28, No. 20050422,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Education association's writ of mandamus was denied where it did not demonstrate right to remove additional contract language regarding identified teacher, N.D. Cent. Code ch. 15-38.1, and there was no bad faith by school district, N.D. Cent. Code § 15.1-16-13. Limited ability to contract separately was not contrary to N.D. Cent. Code ch. 15.1-16.
|
|||||
| N.D. Disciplinary Bd. v. Aakre (In re Application for Disciplinary Action Against Aakre), No. 20050382,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the State of North Dakota until further notice where he was found to have violated conditions imposed on him in a prior disciplinary proceeding; a law firm reported certain financial irregularities concerning the attorney's handling of two clients.
|
|||||
| Pryatel v. K.G. (In the Interest of K.G.), No. 20060158,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sorenson v. Sorenson (In re Estate of Sorenson), No. 20050350,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allowance of the wife's claim against the estate for the promissory note was reversed because there was no evidence of a promise to extend the time for payment, or to forebear suit under the promissory note, much less a written promise or acknowledgment to extend the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands v. Alexander, No. 20050409,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably in denying the tenants' motion for a new trial on the issue of whether to grant them a continuance so they could have attended the eviction trial, because the tenants did not specifically request a continuance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
