 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hunt v. Banner Health Sys., No. 20050402,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, July 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee alleged corporation wrongfully terminated her employment at nursing facility. Summary judgment for corporation was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed as to parties' intent, despite disclaimer contained within employee handbook that it was not a guarantee of employment.
|
|||||
| Heng v. Rotech Med. Corp., No. 20050311,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damage award in favor of the employee for her retaliatory discharge claim against the employer was affirmed because the employee established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, and the finding that the employer failed to satisfy its burden of proving it terminated the employee for nonretaliatory reasons was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. N.D. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Ctr. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 20050224,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to North Dakota Housing Finance Agency (NDHFA) in action against insurance company to recover amount of insurance check paid over forged endorsement where endorsement did not operate as signature of NDHFA and, under N.D. Cent. Code § 41-03-10(4), did not discharge company's obligations as drawer of instrument.
|
|||||
| City of Fargo v. Komad, No. 20050452,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant's right to be present under the Sixth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 12 was not violated when counsel was given the choice to proceed in his absence or face a dismissal of an appeal from municipal court, an error was committed since his presence was required under N.D. R. Crim. P. 43(a).
|
|||||
| Gabel v. N.D. DOT, No. 20060003,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When officer stopped driver's vehicle based on information from dispatcher, who had received a call from a motorist on his cell phone, North Dakota Department of Transportation erroneously suspended driver's privileges, pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-46, because officer did not have sufficient independent basis to justify traffic stop.
|
|||||
| Mountrail Bethel Home v. Lovdahl, No. 20060002,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nursing home sought to recover fees for services from resident's former wife. Trial court erred in dismissing claim because additional findings were needed as to whether there was a contract between the nursing home and the wife.
|
|||||
| State v. Woinarowicz, No. 20060032,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine. Trial court properly denied motion to suppress evidence. Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by testimony because Confrontation Clause did not apply to pretrial hearing. Search after arrest was lawful because officers discovered drugs after obtaining consent to search room.
|
|||||
| Clark v. Clark, No. 20050436,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child custody dispute, a referee properly found that there was a material and significant change of circumstances warranting modification of physical custody under N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.6(6) because the rotating custody arrangement was no longer workable, as evidenced by the parties' lack of cooperation.
|
|||||
| Hagel v. Hagel, No. 20050434,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying wife's request for child support during parties' almost three-year separation period preceding divorce action was overturned and case was remanded for reasoned explanation of trial court's ruling where only reason given by trial court to deny request was that it had "discretion" to set date of commencement of child support obligation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
