 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Bismarck v. DePriest, No. 20060070, No. 20060071, No. 20060072,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were not entitled to defense of entrapment after they were charged with sale or delivery of alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 because N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-05-02(4) authorized law enforcement conduct in conducting compliance checks; intent of N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-08 was to allow persons under 21 to be used in compliance checks.
|
|||||
| Gietzen v. Gabel, No. 20050268,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A custody award in favor of a mother was reversed because a district court did not make specific findings regarding the rebuttable presumption for domestic violence under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1)(j); it did not state if the violence was of a sufficient degree to trigger the presumption or measure the amount of violence by each parent.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Gehringer, No. 20050394,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As former partner engaged in business activities similar to those activities that his partnership engaged in that he had been restrained from participating in for three years, court did not err finding him in contempt of amended judgment and imposing N.D. Cent. Code § 27-10-01.2 sanction of 5% of amount he was paid for his share of the partnership.
|
|||||
| K.H. v. K.H. (In the Interest of K.H.), No. 20050305,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to counsel as a juvenile under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-26(1) was not violated where his mother gave consent to an interview in an arson case; the district court rejected her assertion that an inquiry regarding the need for counsel came prior to the interview.
|
|||||
| Lautt v. Lautt, No. 20050373,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in failing to close the record and address mother's child support modification motion and any changed circumstances following hearing on her motion should not have affected district court's ruling on that motion. Evidence had to be reevaluated to determine whether mother's attorney fee award was supported by specific findings.
|
|||||
| Marquette v. Marquette, No. 20050296,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a district court failed to make specific findings regarding whether a mother demonstrated a willingness to foster the parent-child relationship between a father and three children, the court erred when it gave the mother broad discretion over the father's supervised visitation under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-22(2).
|
|||||
| Molitor v. Molitor, No. 20040041,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's petition to modify custody less than two years after an initial custody decision was denied because he did not satisfy the factors under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.6(5); there was no change in custody, no denial of visitation, and the child was not in danger based on a sibling's drug use.
|
|||||
| Riemers v. State, No. 20050433,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although court did not err in dismissing complaint against State and judge due to invalid service of process under N.D. R. Civ. P. 4, as appellant attempted to serve process on them through first-class mail with return receipt, it erred when it dismissed complaint with prejudice as it should not have considered merits of judicial immunity defense.
|
|||||
| SPW Assocs., Inc. v. Anderson, No. 20050205,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where two parties made contributions to an enterprise to build and sell airplanes, they both exerted a degree of control, there was a written contract, and there was an intent to share the profits based on a designer's broad role in the operation, a designer had the authority to bind the venture under N.D. Cent. Code § 45-15-01(1).
|
|||||
| Spectrum Care LLC v. Stevick, No. 20060018,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The employee's actions in taking a break and leaving the emergency call system unattended did not constitute disqualifying misconduct to prevent receiving unemployment benefits, N.D. Cent. Code § 52-06-02(2), where the employee was not aware that she was required to monitor the emergency call system and thought someone else was watching it.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
