 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| ACUITY v. Burd & Smith Constr., Inc., No. 20060001,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Roof was part of apartment building on which insured contractor was performing operations and was part of property on which that work was incorrectly performed and so, any damages for repair or replacement of a defective roof were excluded under commercial general liability insurance (CGL) policy, but any damage to interior of building was covered.
|
|||||
| Jochim v. Jochim, No. 20060038,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's death, after order for judgment was entered but before judgment and decree of divorce was entered, abated the divorce action, and N.D. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3) did not create an exception to general rule that death of a party to a divorce action, prior to entry of a final decree, abated the action and left nothing for district court to decide.
|
|||||
| Peoples State Bank of Truman, Inc. v. Molstad Excavating, Inc., No. 20050444,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court judgment ordered payment of $20,000 to the company; because the judgment reflected the announced intention of the general contractor and because the contractor had the discretion to distribute the money to the company or to the bank, as the subcontractor's assignee, the award was proper.
|
|||||
| State v. Dailey, No. 20060030,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court judge's comments to the jury, made after verdict was announced, did not constitute bias or prejudice against defendant, as judge could have made same statements during sentencing. Pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-01, defendant was sentenced within the statutory sentencing limits, and district court did not abuse its discretion.
|
|||||
| Ungar v. N.D. State Univ., No. 20050340,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing professor's suit against state university as doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel applied because of issues that had been dealt with in prior suit and professor failed to exhaust his internal administrative remedies and to file timely notice with state as required by N.D. Cent. Code § 32-12.2-04.
|
|||||
| Eckroth v. B.L.S. (In the Interest of B.L.S.), No. 20060216,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order involuntarily committing a patient and requiring forced medications was reversed on appeal because there was no colloquy conducted on the record as to whether or not the patient knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel under N.D. Cent. Code § 25.03.1-13(1).
|
|||||
| Strand v. Cass County, No. 20050380,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action against a county arising out of the demolition of historic buildings, a taxpayer and residents failed to preserve their claim that the district court erred in not instructing the jury on "policy or custom" because the taxpayer and the residents failed to request their own instruction.
|
|||||
| Tibert v. City of Minto, No. 20050393,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, August 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute between property owners and city regarding building permit to allow for construction of grain storage, city did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, and its decision to grant permit was supported by substantial evidence because there was no evidence showing that city's right of ingress or egress via an easement would be impeded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
