 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ellis v. Disciplinary Bd., No. 20060081,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's failure to disclose private reprimand in reinstatement petition did not bar reinstatement because she had served the terms of prior suspensions and met all conditions imposed, but due to lengthy period since she last practiced, she was ordered to retake bar exam to ensure public's protection as provided in N.D. R. Lawyer Disc. 4.5(H).
|
|||||
| Indus. Comm'n v. Noack, No. 20060067,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Borrower moved into home, only to discover the septic system was inadequate. Borrower's attempt to rescind under N.D. Cent. Code § 9-09-04 was improper because borrower's remedies lied against the seller, not the lender or the North Dakota Housing Financing Agency.
|
|||||
| Leet v. City of Minot, No. 20060011,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Recreational use immunity statutes, N.D. Cent. Code ch. 53-08, did not bar the vendor's negligence claims because although the city's intent in opening its auditorium may have been for a public recreational use, the vendor's presence at the auditorium on the day before a seniors event was for employment purposes and not for a recreational purpose.
|
|||||
| State v. Graf, Nos. 20050410, 20050411, 20050412, 20050413, 20050414, 20050415, 20050416, 20050417,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendants' motion to suppress drug evidence because although the co-defendant had not verbally consented to a search when officers followed her into apartment, the illegality of officers' initial entry into the apartment was purged by defendant's subsequent written consent to search after consultation with an attorney.
|
|||||
| State v. Iverson, No. 20060097,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of sentencing credits as defendant was convicted before N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-02(2), the statute under which defendant sought sentencing credits, was effective and retroactive application of § 12.1-32-02(2) would constitute an infringement on the executive pardoning power.
|
|||||
| State v. Schmidkunz, No. 20050141,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's murder trial, State's expert rebuttal testimony on defendant's competency was properly admitted under N.D. R. Evid. 704 as testimony that would assist the trier of fact, even though it embraced the ultimate issue of state of mind because North Dakota had not adopted the prohibition on mental state testimony in Fed. R. Evid. 704(b).
|
|||||
| Sandberg v. Am. Family Ins. Co., No. 20050396,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While an employee did not obtain her uninsured motorist insurer's consent to a settlement with Workforce Safety and Insurance, summary dismissal of the employee's breach of contract claim against the insurer was error as the insurer was still entitled to reduce the amount payable to the employee under N.D. Cent. Code § 26.1-40-15.4.
|
|||||
| Stenvold v. Workforce Safety & Ins., No. 20050344,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On appeal of discontinuation of benefits, as claimant failed to utilize procedures in trial court to make new evidence part of appellate record by failing to move to supplement record under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-45, evidence of her failed work trial and her doctor's reexamination of her and advice to discontinue working could not be considered.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
