 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. DeGroot, No. 20050408,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Ebel, Nos. 20050440 - 20050443,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probable cause supported the issuance of a search warrant, Fourth Amendment, because the officer offered witnesses' observations of open windows in cold weather and cylindrical tanks being taken into defendant's house and the officer testified that the presence of tanks and the open windows was indicative of methamphetamine production.
|
|||||
| State v. Jackson, No. 20060034,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Odom, No. 20060106,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in concluding defendant's consent to a search of his hotel room did not include the locked safe located in the room because, under N.D. Const. art. I, § 8 and U.S. Const. amend. IV, defendant gave general consent to a search of his hotel room for narcotics and failed at any time to limit the scope of the search.
|
|||||
| State v. Sevigny, No. 20050315,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow defendant to introduce alibi evidence because he failed provide notice of his alibi defense as required by N.D. R. Crim. P. 12.1, as he admitted that he had received reports about the Christmas vacation 2003 incident of sexual assault before trial.
|
|||||
| Thurn v. Workforce Safety & Ins., No. 20060092,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Witzke v. Gonzales, No. 20060155,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although trial court correctly dismissed an action because the purported affidavit of service did not constitute proper service of process by mail under N.D. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)(A)(v), court erred in doing so with prejudice because, absent personal jurisdiction, the court was powerless to do anything beyond dismissing the action without prejudice.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
